MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  93-81479 


MICROFILMED  1 993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


r" 


/ 


as  part  of  the  .     „    •   x» 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 

WMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  Is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  Is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  Institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  If,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


FINNEY,  S.  J. 


TITLE: 


BIBLE:  IS  IT  OF 

ORIGIN    *? 


PLACE: 


BOSTON 


DA  TE : 


1860 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  ft 


DinUOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TAUCFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


211.01 

F497 


Finnoy,  S      J 

The  Bible:  is  it  of  divine  origin,  authority, 
and  influence?  by  S.  J.  Finney...   Boston,  IlarrJi, 
x360  • 

115  p,   19?  en. 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


REDUCTION     RATIO: ^//^. 


FILM     SIZE:__ 5_5>>^_ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  (^^  ID^   IID 

DATE     FILMED:________^^3 INITIALS 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGE.  CT 


/— 


r 


Association  for  information  and  image  iManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4        5 


Inches 


1 


TTT 


6        7        8        9 

"■l|"'l|"'l|"''l"l^"'|l'"|l 


rTTTT 


10       11       12       13 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili  iilii 


TTT 


TTJTT 

4 


1.0 

^       14.0 

1& 

1.4 

2.5 
2.2 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

I.I 

1.25 

YTTl-T 


14       15   mm 


■#  jv 


MfiNUFfiCTURED   TO  flllM  STRNDPRDS 
BY  APPLIED   IMRGE,    INC. 


M  « 
■iilllli iillllllli 


y 


M  l^'^ 


mtiit€itpdMmftrik 


LIBRARY 


\ 


) 


THE    BIBLE: 


IS   IT   OP 


DIVINE   ORIGIN,  AUTHORITY,   AND 

INFLUENCE 1 


BY    S.   J.   FINNEY. 


Every  system  of  theology  that  shrinks  from  investigation  "  openly  declares 

its  own  error." 

"  The  truth  shall  make  you  free." 


BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED    BY    BELA   MAESH, 

14  BROMFIELD    STREET. 

1  8  G  0 . 


Intared  acoordlag  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  fhe  year  186»,  bj 

8.   J.   FINNEY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio. 


au.oi 


BOBART  t   BOBBINS. 
Ww  bctena  T/pe  and  ik«natypt 
B08T01I. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Reader,  this  little  book  is  not  an  attack  upon  the  "  Bible,"  but 
an  honest  attempt  to  show  that  the  orthodox  claims  for  th«  book 
are  both  gratuitous  and  false.  I  do  not  aim  my  shafts  at  the  truths, 
the  many  and  beautiful  truths,  that  lie  amid  its  pages  like 
diamonds  amid  the  rubbish  of  ages ;  but  only  at  the  doctrine  that 
it  is  the  first  and  last  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will,  of  mu-aculoui* 
origin,  and  infallible  authority  to  us  on  all  questions  of  morals  and 
religion ;  that  our  reason,  conscience,  and  intuition  are,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  subject  to  the  authority  and  teachings  of  the  Bible ; 
that  the  human  mind  must  believe  it,  or  be  damned  ;  that  it  is  the 
"  only  rule  of  religious  fiiith  and  practice ;"  and  that  an  unqualified 
submission  to  its  teachings  is  the  only  ground  o  hope  for  happiness 
here  and  hereafter.  I  have,  therefore,  with  a  fearless  mind  and  a 
bold  hand,  exposed  its  absurdities,  its  contradictions,  its  immoralities, 
and  its  blasphemous  assumptions. 

Please  don't  forget,  dear  reader,  that  I  reverence  its  golden  truths, 
its  grand  poesy,  its  sublime  allegories,  its  beautiful  spiritual  teach- 
ings, as  highly  as  the  most  devout  Christian  can  ;  for  it  is  a  grand 
old  record,  on  whose  dusty  pages  stand  revealed,  in  lines  of  living 
light,  mighty  utterances  from  the  God  in  man  ;  great,  sweeping 
denunciations  against  tyranny  and  wrong;  irresistible  appeals  to 
the  divinity  of  humanity,  which  have  made  great  furrows  upon  the 
soil  of  the  world. 

I  have  written  to  destroy  the  doctrine  that  the  "  Bible  "  is  our 
master,  — greater  than  the  God  in  matter  and  in  man ;  but  not  to 
destroy  the  idea  that  it  may  be  a  help  when  we  use  it,  instead  of 
being  used  by  it. 

When  it  is  taken  for  divine  authority,  in  sum  total,  it  imposes 
upon  us  the  task  of  sustaining  tyranny  in  church  and  state,  — of 


making  slavery  perpetual,  — of  eiiBtaming  conjugal  despotism,— of 
imposing  unnatural  restraints  upon  our  minds, —of  denying  the 
teutliH  of  science,  and  of  distrusting  re.us^m,  conseienee,  and  intu- 
ition.   But,  left  to  take  it  for  wliat  it  can  prove  iteelf  to  be  worth, 

we  can  read  in  it  the  rcTelations  of  the  human  mind  in  all  stages 
of  progress,  from  the  most  abject  barbarism  to  the  divinest  moments 

of  being. 

When  we  take  the  "  Bible  "  as  an  authority,  we  become  con- 
founded with  its  contradictions,  disgusted  with  its  assumptions,  and 
indignant  at  its  blasphemous  representations  of  God  and  divine 
things.  But,  taking  it  as  only  a  more  or  less  jxTfect  record  of  what 
Tarious  nations  and  persons  did,  thouglit,  believed  and  said,  wc  can 
treat  it  calmly,  justly,  and  even  generously;  and  in  this  light  can- 
not at  all  afford  to  part  with  it  for  any  price. 

There  are  many  sublime  ideas  in  the  "Bible,"  — revelations  of 
the  Divine  Life,  LoTe  and  Beauty,  — ideas  whieli  came  fresh  and 
sparkling  from  the  surges  of  Everhisting  Nature.  These  are  true 
lefdations  of  the  Divine  Will,  inspirations  from  the  Fount  of  Being, 
.Becking  incarnation  in  the  facts  of  the  world. 

I  believe  not  in  the  5Mj>miat«ral  in.<i:i ration,  for  natural  inspira- 
tion is  adequate  for  the  accomplishuieiit  uf  all  the  divine  purposes. 
Besides,  how  can  God  be  jri/;«Tnatural,  and  eternal  luiu  uncreated,  at 
the  same  time? 

What  can  he  more  natural  than  that  which  never  had  a  beginning 
—  was  never  made — and  which  can  therefore  liave  no  end?  The 
divine  things  in  the  "  Bible"  are,  therefore,  the  natural  inspira- 
tioDS  of  God,  made  manifest  in  man.  Such  an  iilea  of  insjiimtion 
gives  us  courage  and  hope ;  for,  if  Moses,  Isaiali,  and  Jesus,  said  and 
did  divine  things,  all  men  may;  and  the  sublimest  utterance  and 
deeds  of  Jesus  become  the  possibility  of  all  men  made  actual. 

And  now,  kind  reader,  if  this  hook  shall  help  to  free  your  mind 
from  the  trammels  of  sect,  and  inspire  you  to  a  nobler  life  than 
mere  subservience  to  creeds,  I  am  content. 

The  Author. 


TEE    BIBLE. 

IS  IT  OF  DIVINE  ORIGIN,  AUTHORITY,  AND  INFLUENCE? 


HISTORICAL    EYIDENCE. 

CHAPTER    I. 

Is  it  a  miraculous  collection  of  miraculous  books,  every  word, 
chapter  and  book  of  which  was  written  by  an  inspiration  from 
God,  so  perfectly  full  and  complete,  that  the  writers  thereof  de- 
livered the  truth,  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  all  the  truth  which 
humanity  needs,  or  which  it  can  get,  on  religious  and  moral  sub- 
jects? Must  man,  must  the  human  soul,  with  all  its  noble  pow- 
ers of  intuition,  reason,  and  the  innate  religious  sentiments,  bow 
to  the  Scripture  —  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Scriptures? 

Is  the  "Bible"  superior  to  nature,  master  of  reason,  greater 
and  more  God-like  than  conscience  ?  Is  it  the  only  revelation 
from  God,  as  an  infallible  rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice  ? 
If  so,  then  man  ought  to  bow  implicitly  to  its  dictum,  without  a 
question  or  a  doubt.  Human  reason  is  nothing,  unless  it  runs 
parallel  with  the  letter  of  the  Book,  if  this  idea  be  true.  Or, 
rather,  it  is  a  rebel  against  God's  government.  If  it  do  not  kisa 
the  book,  it  must  be  damned.  The  religious  sentiment  in  man, 
too,  must  be  subject  to  the  word  of  Moses,  Ezra,  and  Jesus.  If 
Hiis  idea  be  true,  our  only  business  is  to  "  believe,  or  be  damned." 

I  need  hardly  say  that  Christians  generally  so  regard  the 
Bible.    We  hear  this  doctrine  preached  from  nearly  every  pulpit 
I*  (6) 


6 


of  Christciitlotii.  Wc  arc  Bolemiily  told,  by  our  self-constituted 
religious  teachers,  tliat  we  iiiiist  believe  this,  or  be  forever  lost. 
And  tbeu  wc  are  cautioned  against  allowing  our  reason  to  como 
in  contact  witli  the  •* Bible;''  for.  we  arc  told,  '"The  carnal 
miiid  is^  eiimitj  agaiust  God,  is  net  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
Beit  her  indeed  cm  b«,"' 

It  cannot  be  denied,  the  "  Bible  "  is  assumed  to  conic  to  ns  in 
tHe  name  of  God,  as  a  Divine  Law,  claiming  entire  mastery  over 
the  whole  world,  social,  political,  and  religious.     In  this  charac- 
ter il  is  claimed  that  it  has,  and  of  right  ought  to  have,  perfect 
and  entire  control  of  all  buman  affairs,  individual,  uomtLiic,  na- 
tioiial,  universal.    Even  science  and  pliilosophj  must  bow  to  the 
dictum  of  Moses  and  Paul.    Geology  —  God 's  history  of  worlds 
writ  in  rocks— must  bow  to  the  gciicsalcal  cosmogony  of  the 
Pentateuch.     And  astronomy,  God's  history  of  solar  and  stellar 
systems,  written  in  starry  flames  on  high,  too,  must  be  second 
and  inferior  to  the  letter  of  the  -  Word,"  on  parchment  or  in 


Legislatures  are  opened  by  the  reading  of  the  "  Scriptures  " 
iiiimcdiatelj  before  and  after  the  repeal  of  "  Missouri  Com- 
promise lines"  and  the  passage  of  « Fugitive  Slave  Laws,"  to 
bless  the  glorious  work  of  making  Barbary  States  out  of  God'« 
free  soil.     Catholics  and  Protestants  carry  it  to  war  in  their 
hands  against  "  heathen  dogs,"  sending  the  souls  of  their  mur- 
dered enemies  to  hell  by  -Scripture;"  and.  when  no  outward 
enemy  presses,  hurl  it  at  each  other's  heads  to  settle  their  etcr- 
iial  war  about  the  legitimacy  of  their  respective  organizations. 
.Nicholas,  of  Kassia,  goes  to  fight  the  allies  witli  "  Scripture  "  for 
his  authority,  and  the  allies  do  the  same  against  him.    The  South 
quotes  it  to  sustain  slavery,  with  all  its  damning  sins;  and  the 
Morth  helps  the  South  to  do  it ;  only  a  few  raise  their  voia^s 
against  the  lie.    It  has  figured  largely  in  the  affairs  of  this  lower 
world,  and,  if  triie,  its  influence  decides  the  eternal  fate  of  all 
this  world  in  the  world  to  come.     Its  teachings  are  mixed  up 
with  all  our  institutions  of  learning.     Men  and  women  get  mar- 
ried by  Scripture,  live  and  die  by  Scripture,  and  go  to  heaven 


or  hell  by  the  same.  The  mother  sings  Scripture  into  her  baby, 
and  that  bajby,  grown  up  to  be  a  man,  sometimes  blesses,  but, 
alas !  sometimes  curses  his  mother  in  Scripture  language,  dam- 
ning her  to  hell. 

A  Book  of  such  wide-spread  influence  must  have  something  in 
it,  and  in  its  history,  worthy  of  close  and  candid  investigation. 
All  these  results  could  not  come  from  nothing.  This  book,  to 
say  the  least,  must  be  a  very  remarkable  one.  A  strange  infatu- 
ation seems  to  possess  Christians  about  it.  The  idea  that  we  are 
either  to  be  saved  by  the  Scriptures,  or  damned  by  them,  is 
prevalent  in  all  the  churches  in  Christendom.   . 

Now,  the  *'  Bible"  either  is,  or  is  not,  the  only  and  infallible 
ride  of  religious  faith  arid  practice.  It  either  is,  or  is  not,  of 
Divine  and  miraculous  origin,  authority,  and  influence.  If  it  is, 
it  ought  to  be  susceptible  of  proof,  of  positive  proof.  Who,  that 
has  any  manhood  or  reason  in  him,  can  receive  such  an  extraor- 
dinary, such  a  large  statement  on  probabilities,  or  on  mere  hear- 
say evidence  ?  It  is  too  great  a  matter  to  be  so  received.  Such 
claims  are  too  astounding  to  be  taken  for  granted.  Our  cterntil 
destiny  is,  by  the  popular  theology,  based  upon  our  reception  or 
rejection  of  these  claims.  To  believe  is  to  be  saved ;  but  to  be- 
lieve not  is  to  be  damned,  says  this  theology.  It  may  be  well, 
in  the  outset,  if  faith  is  our  only  ground  of  hope  for  *'  salva- 
tion," to  investigate  the  true  grounds  of  faith  ? 

Suppose,  kind  reader,  that  this  proposition  was  made  to  you, 
for  the  first  time,  by  %  Mahometan  for  the  Koran.  What 
kind  or  amount  of  evidence  would  satisfy  your  mind  on  this 
paint?  Would  you  believe  it  because  he  told  you  so,  or  because 
the  Koran  made  snch  claims  for  itself?  Could  you  believe  it 
without  adequate  evidence  of  the  fact  ? 

But  what  is  evidence,  and  what  is  belief?  "  Evidence,"  says 
Webster,  "  is  that  which  elucidates  and  enables  the  mind  to  sec 
truth ;  proof  arising  from  our  own  perceptions,  by  the  senses,  or 
from  the  testimony  of  others,  or  from  the  inductions  of  reason." 
Our  senses  take  cognizance  of  matter  and  its  qualities;  the  dec- 
larations of  a  witness  furnish  evidence  of  facts  to  a  court  or  jury, 


8 


H 


it 


ind  reiWDiiig.  or  the  drductiona  of  the  mind,  furnish  emdence  of 
Iwtli  or  alsehood.  Belief  is  the  result  of  eYidence  distinct  irom 
praonal  knowledge.  A  niaii  may  Mime  a  proposition,  and  not 
kmm  it  to  he  true.  Belief,  then,  being  the  result  of  evidence, 
a  man  cannot  believe  without  evidence;  he  cannot  have  an  ade- 
quate belief  without  adequate  evidence.  Now,  as  wc  do  not 
kmw  the  ••  Bible  "  to  be  what  it  ia  elainied  to  be,  we  must  look 
for  the  proof,  for  the  evidence  of  the  claim. 

And  where  shall  we  find  it?    Before  answering  this  question, 
let  me  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  nature  of  evidence.    We  have 
our  senses  for  exteraal  things,  reason  for  logical  things,  and  in- 
tuition for  spiritual  things.     In  other  words,  testimony  or  evi- 
dence should  always  correspond  in  character  to  the  thing  to  be 
proved.    There  are  but  three  sources  or  fountains  of  evidence : 
First,  nature ;  second,  the  verbal  or  written  testimony  of  our 
fellows  ;  and.  lastly,  ourselves,  our  own  consciousness.    Nature 
fllrni^he3  us  only  with  natural  phenomena,  laws,  and  principles; 
our  fellows  with  historical  testimony,  and  our  consciousness  with 
reason,  which  is  the  exponent  or  ejcpouader  of  nature,  and  the 
judge  and  jury  of  our  fellows'  testimony.     Our  consciousness  is 
the  final  court  of  appeals.     All  natural  facts  are  judged  by  it. 
It  is  the  only  ground  of  the  most  demonstrative  of  all  sciences. 
Mathematics  real  upon  certain  axioms  —  self-evident  truths  — ^ 
which  are  in  the  consciousness  of  man.     For  instance,  the  axiom 
that  the  whole  is  equal  to  the  sum  of  all  its  part«.    The  truth 
of  this  axiom  rests  upon  no  external  proof.     You  cannot  prove 
it  by  logic.     Every  attempt  so  to  do  drives  you  back  into  your 
own  consciousness.     It  is  a  cognition  a  joriori  — a  pure  cogni- 
tion, pure  knowledge,  and  the  first  and  purest  of  all  scientific 
knowledge. 

But  the  truth  of  these  claims  is  not  axiomatic,  is  not  self- 
evident ;  for,  if  it  were,  all  men  would  believe  them  as  soon  as 
announced.  But  all  men  who  hear  the  statements  do  not  believe 
them,  even  after  reading  whole  libraries  of  works  written  to  prove 
them.  The  evidence,  then,  in  favor  of  these  claims,  cannot  come 
from  our  conaciousnem,  from  our  intuition  or  reason.    Neither 


can  it  be  drawn  from  nature ;  for  the  very  claims  are  of  a  super' 
natural  character. 

The  Bible  is  claimed  to  be  a  supernatural  revelation  of  God's 
will  to  niun,  miraculouply  given.  If  it  be  of  a  miraculous,  a 
supernatural  origin,  then,  according  to  the  laws  of  evidence,  it 
ean  be  proved  ouly  by  miraculous  and  supernatural  testimony; 
that  is,  a  continual  miracle,  or  the  constant  repetition  of  the 
original  loiiacle  which  first  gave  it  to  the  world,  is  essential  to 
eacli  individual  to  whom  these  claims  are  made,  to  convince  him 
of  the  fact.  It  will  not  do  to  say  there  are  miracles  in  the 
Eilile.  There  are  no  miracles  there,  but  only  stories  or  records 
of  miracles.  If  tlu>.se  records  are  true,  those  niiraelos  were  mir- 
acles only  to  those  who  saw  them ;  not  to  us  who  read  the  stories 
of  them  in  this  late  day.  The  common  argument  from  the  mira- 
cles recorded  in  the  Bible,  is  all  a  begging  of  the  question.  It 
stands  about  thus :  The  Bible  is  a  miraculous  revelation  from 
God.     This  is  the  proposition.     Now  for  the  proof. 

A  book  which  contains  miracles  must  come  from  God.  The 
Bible  contains  miracles ;  therefore  it  came  from  God.  Now,  let 
me  apply  this  process  of  reasoning  to  the  Koran. 

A  book  which  contains  miiacles  must  come  from  God.  The 
Koran  contains  miracles ;  therefore  the  Koran  came  from  God. 
And  .so  of  every  other  book  which  contains  miraculous  stories, 
or  records  of  so-called  miracles.  This  kind  of  reasoning  would 
prove  all  the  "Bibles"  of  the  Pagan  world  divine.  The  fallacy 
of  this  process  is  found  in  the  grand  blunder  of  mistaking  the 
account  of  a  miracle  for  the  miracle  itself.  All  the  Bibles  of 
the  heathen  contain  stories  of  miracles.  Are  all  divine,  then  ? 
This  argument  is  as  good  for  the  Pagan  as  for  the  Christian,  and 
so  proves  too  much  by  a  great  shot.  Again,  says  the  Christian, 
the  writers  of  the  Bible  were  honest  men,  and  so  would  not  tell 
lies,  and  therefore 'these  stories  of  miracles  are  true,  and  hence 
the  Bible  is  divine.  I  ask,  how  does  he  know  they  were  honest 
men  ?  Suppose  they  were ;  do  not  honest  men  make  mistakes, 
and  often  believe  untruths,  and  so  state  them  to  others?  But 
again.    There  are  no  miracles  to-day  affirming  the  truth  of  these 


I>  i 


10 

claims  for  the  Bible.  This  is  a  nolorious  f«ct.  Having  shown 
that  two  sources  of  evidence,  namely,  nature  and  our  conscious- 
ne^  are  cut  from  the  support  of  these  claims,  are  precluded  by 
their  nature  from  such  support,  we  turn  to  the  last  source  of 
proof,  the  testimony  of  man.  This  testimony  may  be  divided 
into  two  parts :  First,  the  external  historical  testimony,  and  the 
luterual  testimony  of  the  book  itself  Our  jury,  our  tribunal,  is 
nature  and  reason ;  our  judge  is  our  consciousness ;  our  cognitions 
apnon.  ° 

Let  ns  turn  to  these  two  points.  First,  the  external  history 
of  the  Bible's  origin;  and,  second,  the  contents  and  character  of 
the  book  Itself.  Now,  if  these  miraculous  claims  can  be  proved 
at  all  they  can  be  so  proved  from  these  two  sources;  and  only 
Irom  these  two.  ^ 

A^ow  for  the  first  fact  io  the  external  history  of  the  Bible. 
It  18  limited,  crcuiHscribed,  local,  finite  in  its  presence  It  is 
niorc  limited  than  the  human  race,  which  it  is  claimed  it  wia 
given  to  save.  It  is  not,  and  it  never  has  been,  in  the  hands  of 
one  thousandth  of  the  human  world.  This  is  a  notorious  fact 
It  IS  patent  to  the  observation  of  every  one 

How  can  it  be  an  "  infelHble  rule  of  religious  faith  and  prac 
tice  to  those  who  never  saw  it,  and  never  heard  of  it  ?  No 
sane  mind  will  for  m  moment  pretend  it.  Of  course,  if  God  were 
to  gwe  the  world  a  revelation  of  his  will,  that  revelation  would 
not  be  supererogatory;  i|  would  be  necessary  and  useful  for  thi.t 
wee.  If  It  were  necessary  for  the  whole  race,  for  each  indi- 
vidual thereof,  of  course  he  would  make  it  as  wide  in  its  pies- 

each  indmdnal  of  the  race,  or  at  least  within  his  reach.  Now 
the  popular  theology  assumes  the  existence  of  a  universal  nee  J 
sity  for  the  Bible  as  a  miraculous  revelation  from  God:  and  this 
necessity  is  further  assumed  to  be  in  the  assumed  fact  of  nn2 
adequacy  to  discover  by  the  light  of  nature  that  moral  and 
religious  truth  necemry  and  indispensable  to  his  eternal  "salva- 

lZm.l  r   .  ^l\:''''''f  »°«^ua«J  of  man  is  based  on  the 
wumed  fact  of  the  "depravity"  of  human  nature;   and  this 


11 


depravity  is  rested  again  on  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Fall,"  original 
"  sin,"  a  woman  eating  an  apple,  in  consequence  of  the  talk  of  a 
snake  walking  on  his  tail ;  and  this  last  story,  on  the  "  Bible," 
the  very  book  whose  authority  we  are  discussing,  and  thus  beg- 
ging the  whole  question  at  once. 

'T  is  thus  people  often  reason  in  a  circle,  and  so  end  just  where 
they  began.  Thus  it  is  that  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  for 
such  a  revelation  as  the  Bible  is  claimed  to  be  stands.  Theolo- 
gians sometimes  quote  the  wickedness  of  the  world  as  proof  of 
the  "  fall,"  and  sometimes  quote  the  "  fall "  as  a  proof  of  the 
wickedness  of  the  world.  In  both  cases  they  beg  the  question. 
To  quote  the  wickedness  of  the  world  is  no  proof  of  the  "  fall ;  " 
for  all  human  history  proves  man  progressive.  Progress  is  a  law 
of  nature.  Man  is  only  a  part  or  portion  of  a  universal  system  of 
things.  He  cannot  get  out  of  nature,  nor  out  of  the  tides  of 
universal  Life  which  are  ever  flowing  fast  from  the  Infinite 
Fountain  of  Being.  Progress  is  carved  in  the  tables  of  granite, 
and  writ  on  the  face  of  the  midnight  sky.  All  things  grow  up 
toward  the  light.  The  beautiful  flower  turns  its  head  to  keep 
the  course  of  the  life-bestowing  sun.  The  oak  grows  with  its 
top  toward  the  sky.  So  human  nature  tends  in  the  ultimate  ever 
Bivineward.  I  have  no  sympathy  with  that  cold  materialism 
which  believes  in  a  body  without  a  soul,  a  world  without  a  God, 
and  a  here  without  a  hereafter.  It  is  a  cold  negativism,  which 
robs  the  "  flower  of  fleeting  life  of  all  its  color  and  perfume."  I 
believe  in  God,  Liberty,  and  Immortality.  That  is  my  creed. 
God  —  a  name  which  to  me  stands  for  Life,  Love,  and  Wisdom, 
and  which  signifies  Justice — the  Infinite  Conscience;  Love,  the 
Infinite  Power ;  and  Beauty — the  Infinite  Perfection.  So  far  as 
any  individual  is,  io  thought  and  life  an  embodiment  of  these 
principles,  in  so  far  is  he  an  Incarnation  of  Divinity.  God, 
then,  is  in  matter  and  in  man,  as  their  Life,  Power,  and  Des- 
tiny.    But  I  cannot  stop  to  enlarge  upon  this  beautiful  topic. 

If  a  perfect  God  were  to  give  mankind  a  revelation  of  His 
will,  which  was  necessary  for  their  moral  and  religious  wants,  he 
would  make  that  revelation  as  extensive  as  the  demand  which  it 


hi 


12 

was  giTOii  to^  coTcr.     This  h  sclflevideiit.     But  Ihe  Bible  does 

mi  cover  otie-teiith  part  of  such  demands;  therefore  it  is  not  a 
revelation  from  God.  But  the  q'ucstion  comes,  Does  not  man 
need  .oiiie  revelation  from  God  ?  I  answer,  he  docs.  Mankind 
needs  a  constant  and  world-wide  revehition  of  God's  nature  ami 
laws,  physical,  moral,  spirituiil.  Man  has  such  an  one  alw-.ys 
before,  around,,  above,  below,  and  wiikiu  him.  God  speaks  t.. 
mm  from  ont  his  Iioly  temple  —  Nature,  whose  dome  is  the  sf.r- 
be^ewclled  sky,  whoso  altar  is  a  pure  soul,  and  whose  priest  is 
lleason,  Intuition. 

Tlie  Bible  was  confined  to  the  Jewish  church  for  more  than 
four  thousand  years.     It  represents  God  as  loving  the  Jews,  and 

haluig  other  iKitions.     Now,  let  mo  ask,  does  God  have  pets? 
Is  he  partial  to  his  own  creatures?    Bid  he  give  the  Bible  for 
the  good  of  all  ?  or  only  for  the  good  of  a  few  Jews  and  Chri.s- 
tians  ?    Does  he  love  the  greedy  Jew  better  than  the  wanderini? 
Arab,  or  the  untutored  Indian  ?    Who  affirms  these  questions 
denies  the  divinity  of  God.     Who  can  believe  in  such  a  concen' 
tion  of  Divinity?    Who  but  a  bigoted  sectarian  can  love  such 
m  Idea  of  God  — a  God  who  loves  his  friends,  his  pets   and 
hates  his  enemies?    The  God  of  Jesus'  noble  soul  said,  "Love 
jour  eiieniies." 

But  now  let  us  come  direct  to  the  external  argument  in  detail. 
We  have  but  two  ways  of  proving  the  divinity  of  the  Bible 
First,  by  a  direct  appeal  to  the  external  history  of  its  ori.-rin  •  .,nd* 
second,  by  an  appeal  to  its  contents.  I  take  the  external  argu-' 
meat  first,  because  it  is  the  direct  method  of  proof,  and  internal 
last,  because  it  is  the  wdireet  method  of  proof. 

The  authority  of  the  churches,  as  inspired'  organizations  on 
this  question,  is  Bot  evidence;  for  they  disagree.     And  the  con- 
science or  consciousness  of  a  Christian  is  no  more  proof  of  the  ■ 
divinity  of  the  Bible,  than  the  consciousness  of  a  Mahometan  is 
proof  of  the  divinitj  of  the  Koran. 


CHAPTER    II. 

Is  there  adequate  historical  testimony  to  prove  directly  the 
miraculous  origin  of  the  Bible  ?  This  question  may  be  divided 
into  two.  First,  is  there  adequate  external  historical  evidence 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  of  a  miraculous  origin  ?  And,  sec- 
ond, is  there  adequate  external  historical  evidence  to  show  that 
the  New  Testament  was  of  a  miraculous  origin  ?  On  this  part 
of  the  argument  I  shall  quote  only  orthodox  writers.  I  shall 
bring  forward  only  such  authorities  as  the  church  receives  and 
acknowledges.  I  shall  not  appeal  to  a  single  "infidel  "  writer; 
I  mean  those  whom  the  church  calls  "  infidel."  If  one  looks 
over  the  pages  of  orthodox  writers  on  this  subject,  he  will  see 
that  all  the  arguments,  based  on  historical  testimony,  amount,  at 
best,  only  to  doubtful  possibilities.  There  is  no  positive  or  per- 
fectly  reliable  historical  evidence  to  show  that  the  persons,  to 
whom  most  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  ascribed,  had  anything 
to  do  with  writing  them.  This  is  strictly  true  of  most  of  the 
New  Testament  books,  and  more  generally  true  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament books.  The  truth  of  this  statement  will  appear  in  the 
following  pages. 

First.  There  is  no  possibility  of  proving  directly  from  exter- 
nal historical  testimony  that  God  miraculously  revealed  a  single 
word,  sentence  or  book,  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  writers 
thereof;  for  we  do  not  know,  from  external  history,  who  the 
writers  of  any  of  the  books  were ;  and,  when  they  are  supposed 
to  be  known,  it  is  only  by  the  Bible  itself,  which  we  have  no 
right  to  assume  as  authority  until  it  is  proved.  To  make  such 
an  assumption  is  to  beg  the  whole  question  at  issue.  There  is 
not  a  page  of  reliable  external  history  that  gives  the  faintest 
direct  evidence  of  its  divine  and  miraculous  origin.  I  will  prove 
{his  by  the 

ADMISSION    OF   CHRISTIAN    WRITERS. 

I  quote  first  from  a  "  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism,"  by  Sam- 
uel Davidson,  D.  D.  and  LL.  D.,  of  the  University  of  Ilalle. 

2 


He  says  m  Vol.  z.,  p.  15 :  -In  the  Old  Testament  we  have 
wntingB  belonging  to  very  different  times.    Hence  arise  their 
nian.fod  character,  at  least  in  part.     There  is  great  difficulty  in 
a«cert..nu.g  the  diU.rcnt  periods  belonging  tfthe  various  rl 
mams  of  the  Ilebrov  literature.     It  is  not  easy  to  assign  each 

toe  when  r'"-'?''f°  "^  "■"  ^  *"  "'"'<""'•  "^'^'o't    The 

Setrrsr  "^  '^''''' "-  '^'^'~'''  --  ^-•" 

don^twtr;"  l^^'S  *"'  ""  *>""  «"" '"'  hoped  for  is  a 
doubtful  appros.n>at.on,  m  settling  the  era  or  age  in  which  any 
one  of  Its  books  was  written."     Asrain  nn  *hn  fij.i  "  "7 

«me  volume,  he  snv. :  .  From  the ifltho  f  ^u^",  "^  "" 

wrUten,  till  the  cV       ''t""  *'"' ""^^^^  ^P^"'"'"  >>ookswere 

menf  K  Ji    .1         , "  ""'""'•  ^-  C-  2"0.  the  Old  Testa- 

ment  books  thenue  vcs  are  the  cxc]n.W^  c^,„.J    c  ■  c         ■ 
M  to  the  state  of  the  t,n-7l     -T   ' ,     o  "'^  ^formation. 

.„J       *!-    -r.  .  •  '^^"^'■'  ""*  Samaritan  Pentateuch  •  " 

and  on  the  79th  na^e  he -iilmlt..  tK„. /-■„     ■  ^"'-^ii-ucn, 

neholn,      ..  •  *'  Gesenms  —  a  great  Hebrew 

.cholar  -  "  proves  .ueonte.taLIy  "  that  Ihi.  same  Samarit-m  Pen 
tateueh  .,  of  little  or  no  vaiue.*     And  .since  Geserjable    n 
T^  .gat.n  the  Pentateuch  has  fallen  into  quite  gZ^  dttj 
among  the  learned.    Of  the  .MSS.,  he  affi.u's,  on  the  3411^ 

ZZ  :l    r  f  :?•  '  '"="""  '°  '-  J-terminod.-    it; 

writers  on  fl,;.  .    •     f,  *^°°^^  "'^  ^^°^^-"    ^mong  the 

Wrte  s  on  th,s  point  tliure  are  various  and  conflicting  opinions* 
All  tha  he  and  the  author  he  quotes  give  on  this  subjeeris 

'ObJj**  conjecture."'  '"*■»  &uojtcc  la 

In  npe^kms  of  the  history^  of  the  Hebrew  text,  prior  to  the 
elose  of  the  canon,  Daviclsoo  says,  p  71 .  «  Of  thZ7    p  !. 
test  dtirinrr  thm  fj^n         i         .     ^'  ^    ^**®  ®^^^  o^  t'^o 

f^xt  utinng  tills  time  we  know    tt,Ic."    Ai^ain  nn  n  iaq  ir  i 

.  '^'^^  •  "  **>  impossible  to  nscertain  prccLscI j  the  time  when 
w©  canon  was  completeil  A„ii,o,if;«  l-  .  /  ""^  ""»e  wnen 
inilii^^f^  iir'  '  y^^^°"  ^^u^hentie  history  does  not  clearlv 
wdicate  this  important  epoch  in  sacred  literature  »  ^ 

After  giving  the  conflicting  opinione  of  various'  writei.  on  this 

*  See  Diaaertation  the  Second,  on  the  stotU'  of  tho  nnj^.^i  ir  ^ 
fOge  mi:  ^  ^^  ™®  printed  Hebrew  text. 


15 

point,  —  namely,  of  Habernick,  Stuart,  Hcngstenberg,  and  Jose- 
plius^ he  concludes  that  the  whole  matter  is  uncertain  and  doubt- 
ful. Kcnnicott,*  a  celebrated  Hebrew  scholar,  and  collator  of 
six  hundred  and  ninety-two  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  also  Pro- 
fessor Bobinson,t  who  styles  himself,  "  Edward  Robinson,  Pro- 
fessor Extraordinary  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  of  Andover,"  are  of  the  "opinion"  that  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  collated,  revised  and  corrected,  and  left 
pure  and  perfect  by  Ezra,  Nehcniiuh,  and  subsequent  prophets. 
That  they,  and  especially  Ezra,  v^ere  inspired  as  prophets  in  this 
operation.  But  Davidson  is  quite  certain  that  this  last  notion  is 
only  based  on  Jewish  "  fable."  To  keep  the  MSS.  pure  would 
require  a  miracle,  and  much  more  so  to  make  thcui  perfect  after 
once  being  made  imperfect. 

Professor  Robinson,  in  his  Calmet,  admits  that  Moses  was  not 
the  author  of  all  the  Pentateuch;  and  it  is  believed  that  he 
wrote  none  of  it  except  in  connection  with  xiaron.  But  it  is 
evident  that  Aaron  could  not  have  written  the  death  of  Moses ; 
for  he  himself  had  died  long  before.  So  Ezra  is  chosen  to 
remove  the  difficulties  with  which  the  Bible  is  so  sadly  incum- 
bered. 

As  a  fine  specimen  of  the  total  uncertainty  of  the  facts  of  the 
Bible  history,  take  the  following  from  llobinson's  Calniet  on 
Ezra :  "  It  is  believed  that  Ezra  was  chiefly  concerned  in  re- 
vising and  arranging  the  books  of  Scripture.  He  had  great  zeal 
and  knowledge ;  and,  having  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  it  is  very 
probable  that  he  took  great  pains  in  collecting  the  sacred  wri- 
tings, and  forming  the  present  canon. 

"  It  is  thought  that  he  assisted  in  completing  the  books  of 
Chronicles,  and  added  what  appeared  necessary  for  illustrating, 
comiecthuj  or  completing  them.  Some  are  of  opimon  that  Ezra, 
and  Mulachi  are  the  isame  person  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  Malachi 
is  not  so  much  a  proper  as  a  common  name,  meaning  angels  or 

*  ScG  nolo  on  pTOCcding  page. 

t  See  llobiiisou's  Calnict,  art.  Ezra. 


16 

mejacDgers  of  the  Lord,  and  that  in  Ezra's  time  prophets  were 
calledangels— mcsseDgersof  theLord."  l    F     »  were 

The  same  author,  in  an  article  ha-ided  "Bil.Ie,"  gays-  "No 
injury  .a  done  to  the  just  argument  on  bei.alf  of  inLiation 

himself  that  Jacob  contmued  what  concoraed  himself  and  -a 
length  t  at  Jloses  compi..^,  arrange,!,  and  edited  (.ou  e  iLt 
cm  word)  a  copy  of  the  holy  ^ks  extant  in  his  time  " 

than  in  .h      ?       I  ""^  ""'^  *  '-  "•«  -'"^^  of  ^•>-hu„^ 
tiau  m  the.eday»  of  steam-printing  and  electric  telegraphs? 

How  much  miraculous  "  inspiration  "  doo.  if  im«^  f„      -f^l 
memn;..7    rr  funon     uots  It  need  to  write  famiy 

memoes  ?  He  goes  on :  "  A  freedom  perfectly  analogous  to  thi*^ 
was  conducted  bv  Ezra   In  »  t„.„-  „  ,        "'ufeous  to  tms, 

,7,  ^™'  '"  "  '"'«'  "gc.  on  whose  edition  of  holy 
fecnpture  our  fa.th  now  rest«.  as  it  rests  in  like  manner  upon  t  e 
pnor  od...on  of  Moses,  if  he  were  the  editor  of  some  parts  or 
on  h,s  authority  if  he  were  the  author  of  the  whole?"  "^^  ofel 
sor  Ivobmson  has  much  more  to  the  same  effect.     He  well  sa™ 
"Here  we  ought  to  pause;  for  our  faith  rests  upon  Ezra  "    S 
who  M  or  was  Ezra?     Professor  Robinson  thfnks  "E^  „!' 
Ma  ach."    That  "  Malachi  was  not  so  much  a  pro;r  ^.  ^1 
ha    ,s  the  name  of  a  certain  individual,  as  a  common  name- 
that  18.  the  name  of  a  class. 

If  Ezra  was  Malachi.  and  if  Malachi  means  an.rels  or  me«. 
sengera  of  the  Lord,  then  Ezra  was  not  an  indi^^d,,nl    h  » 
company  of  p,„„,,  .„,  ^^^^  ^^^^,^  -1.  bu    a 

posed     that  a  company  of  winged  and  feathered  angels  wereThe 
^mpders.  editors,  and  perfecton,  of  the  Old  Tes.ame„rboo  ' 
He.  we  have  only  suppositions,  and  exceedingly  dubious  le" 

of  Iln  ^''"'•••"euch,  though  not  without  the  concurrence 

lumor  matters  to  ,t,  such  as  the  history  of  the  death  of  MoZ^ 
and  Ezra,  in  his  mliUnr.  .=  „j  r  .  JUoses; 

it "    iZZ  T  '  ^        "^  '"""'  """'^  """W  »»tters  to 

j»       -iicre  wo  ought  to  pause,  because  here 


17 

our  faith  rests  oa  Ezra's  edition"  —  (and  Ezra  means  Malachi, 
and  Malachi  means  angels), — "  and  we  doubt  not  this  scribe"  — 
(a  company  of  winged  and  plumed  angels — what  a  scribe!)  — 
"  was  well  instructed  in  the  law,  and  had  not  only  reasons  for  what 
he  did,  and  for  liis  manner  of  doing  it,  but  also  Divine  guidance  to 
preserve  him  from  erring.  We  suspect  that  we  have  many  in- 
stances of  Ezra's  caution,  as  we  have  marginal  readings  in  our 
Hebrew  Bibles,  which  in  all  amount  to  eight  hundred  and  forty." 
Dr.  Davidson  thinks  this  idea  of  Ezra's  inspiration  is  a  Jewish 
fable ;  and  certainly  it  sounds  very  fabulous  to  call  Ezra,  Mala- 
chi, and  Malachi,  angels,  and  angels,  a  scribe. 

Again,  says  the  same  author  (Vol.  i.,  p.  G5) :  "  It  is  now  uni- 
versally admitted  that  the  Old  Testament  has  not  come  down  to 
us  without  mistake.  Its  absolute  integrity  and  perfection  are  no 
longer  upheld.  It  is  patent  to  the  observation  of  every  one." 
The  Old  Testament  has  sliared  the  fate  of  other  ancient  books. 
It  has  suffered  from  the  mistakes  of  transcribers.  Nothing  but 
a  continual  miracle  could  have  saved  it  from  this;  and  facts 
show  that  the  Deity  has  not  interposed  miraculously  to  prevent 
copyists  from  falling  into  the  slightest  error. 

He  then  says :  "  Mistakes  have  two  causes  —  accident  and  de- 
sign." Justin  Martyr,  Gesenius,  TertuUian  and  Eusebius,  Origen 
and  Jerome,  —  Christian  fathers,  —  accuse  the  Jews  of  corrupt- 
ing their  sacred  text.  I  will  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  the 
accusation  from  these  first  lights  of  the  church,  for  I  suspect 
them ;  but  they  are  church  authority,  and  so  good  for  Christians. 
The  historical  evidence  of  Christianity  turns  on  the  testimony 
of  these  same  Christian  Fathers."  I  shall  notice  their  characters 
as  witnesses  by  and  by. 

With  reo-ard  to  the  state  in  which  the  Old  Testament  books 
were  left  by  this  exceedingly  uncertain  character,  "  Ezra,  Mal- 
achi, or  angels  of  the  Lord,"  Dr.  Davidson  very  candidly  re- 
marks (Vol.  I.,  p.  108)  :  "  Inclined  as  we  are  to  go  further,  and 
say  that  an  absolutely  correct,  genuine  copy  was  finished  under 
the  immediate  direction  and  superintendence  of  Heaven  by  the 
inspired  Ezra,  or  by  him  along  with  Nchcmiah,  or  by  others 

2* 


ii 


m 


■Kigien  of  til©  Lord,  and  that  in,  Ezra's  time  prophetg  wero 
allied  angels — meswsngew  of  the  Lord.'* 

■The  ame  anthor,  io  an  article  headed  "Bible,"  ays:  "No 
injmy  b  done  to  the  just  argument  on  behalf  of  inspiration. 
if  we  suppose  Abraham  wrote  family  memoirs  of  what  related  to 
himself;  that  Jacob  continued  what  concorned  himself,  and  at 
length  that  Moses  compiled,  arranged,  and  edited  (to  use  a  mod- 
em word)  a  copj  of  the  My  wm-Jb  extent  in  his  time." 

At  thk  ;point  let  me  ask,  are  family  memoirs  peculiarlj 
•*holy"'f  Were  they  any  more  so  in  the  days  of  Abraham, 
than  in  these  days  of  steam-printing  and  electric  telegraphs? 
How  much  miraculous  '•  inspiration  "  does  it  need  to  write  fiimily 
memoirs?  He  goes  on  :  "  A  freedom  perfectly  analogous  to  this, 
was  conducted  by  Ezra,  in  a  later  age,  on  whose  edition  of  holy 
Scripture  onr  faith  now  rests,  as  it  rests  in  like  manner  upon  the 
prior  edition  of  Moses,  if  lie  were  the  editor  of  some  parts,  or 
OB  his  anthority  if  he  were  the  author  of  the  whole  ?"  Profes- 
sor Robinson  has  much  more  to  the  same  effect.  He  well  says, 
•*  Here  we  onght  to  pause ;  for  our  faith  rests  upon  Ezra."  But 
who  is  or  was  Ezra  ?     Professor  Ilobinson  thinks  « Ezra  was 

Blalaehi."    That  *•  Malaehi  was  not  so  mueh  a  proper  name  " 

that  is  the  name  of  a  certain  individual,  as  a  common  name  — 
that  is,  the  name  of  a  class. 

If  Ezra  was  Bfalachi,  and  if  Blalachi  means  angels  or  mes- 
sengers of  the  Lord,  then  Ezra  was  not  an  individual,  but  a 
company  of  plumed  and  winged  angels.  So,  then,  it  is  "sup- 
posed" that  a  company  of  winged  and  feathered  angels  were  the 
compilers,  editors,  and  perfectors  of  the  Old  Testament  books. 
Here  we  have  only  suppositions,  and  exceedingly  dubious  ones 
at  that. 

Again,  says  Dr.  Robinson:  "Accepting  Moses  as  the  author 
or  writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  though  not  without  the  concurrence 
of  Aaron,  we  may,  nevertheless,  consider  Joshua  as  adding  some 
minor  matters  to  it,  such  m  the  history  of  the  death  of  Moses; 
and  Ezra,  in  his  edition,  as  adding  some  other  minor  matters  to 
it."    Again,  he  says :  "  Here  we  ought  to  pause,  because  hero 


1  m 

our  foith  wBte  OB  Ezra's  edition  "  —  (and  Ezra  meana  Malwhi, 
i«d  Malaehi  means  angels),-"  and  we  doubt  not  this  scnbe"- 
(»  company  of  winged  and  plumed  angels-what  a  scnbe.)- 
..  was  well  instructed  in  the  law,  and  had  not  only  reasons  for  what 
he  did,  and  for  his  manner  of  doing  it,but  also  Divine  guidance  to 
preserve  him  from  erring.    We  suspect  that  we  have  many  m- 
stances  of  Ezra's  caution,  as  we  have  marginal  readmgs  m  our 
Hebrew  Bibles,  which  in  all  amount  to  eight  hundred  and  forty." 
Dr  Davidson  thinks  this  idea  of  Ezra's  inspiraUon  is  a  Jewish 
fable ;  and  certainly  it  sounds  very  fabulous  to  caU  Ezra,  Mala- 
ehi, and  Malaehi,  angels,  and  angels,  a  scribe. 

Aoain,  says  the  same  author  (Vol.  i.,  p.  65) :  "  It  is  now  uni- 
versally admitted  that  the  Old  Testament  has  not  come  down  to 
us  without  mistake.  Its  absolute  integrity  and  perfection  are  no 
longer  upheld.  It  is  patent  to  the  observation  of  every  one. 
The  Old  Testament  has  shared  the  fate  of  other  ancient  books. 
It  has  suffered  from  the  mistakes  of  transcribers.  Nothing  but 
a  continual  miracle  could  have  saved  it  from  this;  and  laets 
show  that  the  Deity  has  not  interposed  miraculously  to  prevent 
copyists  from  faUing  into  the  slightest  error. 

He  then  says :  "  Mistakes  have  two  causes  —  accident  and  do- 
BKu  "  Justin  Martyr,  Gesenius,  TortuUian  and  Eusebius,  Origen 
and  Jerome,  -  Chrbtian  fathers,  -  accuse  the  Jews  of  corrupt- 
ing  their  sacred  text.  I  wiU  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  tho 
a<Susation  from  these  first  lights  of  the  cbureh,  for  I  suspect 
tbem ;  but  they  are  chur.U  authority,  and  so  good  for  Christians. 
The  historical  evidence  of  Christianity  turns  on  the  testimony 
of  these  same  Chrbtian  Fathers."    I  shall  notice  their  characters 

as  witnesses  by  and  by. 

With  regard  to  the  st.te  in  ^vhieh  the  Old  Testataent  books 
were  left  by  thb  exceedingly  uncertain  ehnrattor,  "  Ezra,  Mal- 
aehi, or  angels  of  tho  LorJ,"  Dr.  Davidson  very  candidly  re- 
marks (Vol.  1.,  p.  108) :  "  Inclined  as  we  are  to  go  further,  and 
Bay  that  an  absolutely  correct,  genuine  copy  was  finbhcd  under 
the  immediate  direction  and  superintendence  of  Heaven  by  the 
inspired  Ezra,  or  by  him  along  with  Nchemiah,  or  by  others 

2* 


1 1 


18 

after  them,  ine  ime  not  make  ihe  (uscriion^  in  ike  absence  of  all 
e&Mmce^  agaimi  anaiogf  and  the  str&mjest  premmpimn." 

Tlie  exteroal  cvideiiceajo  faYor  of  tlie  miraculous  origio  of  tho 
books  of  the  Old  TcstamcDt  are  absolutely  nil —  nothing ;  while 
the  whole  historjof  the  books  prior  to  the  fonnution  of  the  cauori 
m  prima-facia  proof  of  their  human  origin.  Let  us  trace  the 
liiBtory  of  the  text  down  still  further. 

After  giving  the  causes  of  the  corruption  of  the  text,  and 
quoting  a  long  list  of  passages  proving  such  corruptions,  he  says 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  71) :  "  But  we  cannot  suppose  Old  Testament  wri- 
tings were  perfectly  free  from  alterations  in  the  earliest  times 
prior  to  their  complete  collection  into  one  volume.    No  work  of 
intiquity  has  been  long  kept  entirely  immaculate.     Nor  have 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  escaped  the  same  fate  with  others." 
Be  Wette,  Bauer,  Eichhorne,  and  others,  allude  to  a  long  list 
of  parallels  in  Psalms,  Chronicles,  Kings,  and  Samuel,  to  show 
that  before  the  colleetioe  of  the  books  included  in  the  canon, 
their  text  had  suffered  much  from  the  carelessness  as  well  as  tho 
rashness  of  transcribers.     Of  the  state  of  the  text  from  the  close 
of  the  canon  till  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  we  know  that  it  was  cor- 
rupt    (See  David.  Bib.  Crit.,  Vol.  i.,  p.  111.)     Such  being 
the  state  of  the  text  before  the  formation  of  tho  Septuiigint, — tho 
oldest  translation  or  version  of  any  part  of  the  Scriptures,— it  fol- 
lows that  all  subsequent  versions  or  translations  made  from  them 
must  be  corrtipt  also.     Of  the  history  of  this  version,  Dr.  Da- 
vidson  remarks  (Vol  i.,  p.  163) :  "The  history  of  this  version 
is,  unfortunately,  veiled  in  obscurity.     The  notices  which  come 
down  to  m  are  suspicious."     Writers  on  this  version  contradict 
each  other.     Tliere  are  no  sure  data  to  rest  upon.    All  is  uncer- 
tainty.     Dc  Davidson  admits  that  the  Septuagint  is  not  a 
faithful  version.   (See  page  192.)     Origcn  and  St.  Jerome  both 
complain  of  its  ini perfections.    Hence  all  translations  made  from 
this  version  must  be  iui|)crfect  and  coriupted  also.     And  let  it 
be  remembered  tliat  this,  the  Septuagint  version,  is  the  one  from 
which  both  Jesus  and  bis  disciples  always  quote.     Indeed,  all 
the  principal  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  the  Septua- 


19 

gint,  the  fragments  of  the  other  Greek  translators,  the  old  Syriao 
or  Peshito,  the  Latin  of  Jerome,  the  Turgurus,  especially  those 
of  Oukclos  and  Jonathan,  and  the  Arabic  of  Saadias  Hag- 
gaon,  all  are  admitted  to  be  imperfect,  and  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent  corrupted.     (David.  Bib.  Crit.,  p.  28.) 

But  I  need  go  no  further  on  this  point  to  show  that  Christian 
scholars  admit  all  I  affirm  in  my  first  proposition  concerning  the 
external  historical  evidence  of  the  divine  and  miraculous  origin 
of  the  Old  Testament.  If  there  were  any  positive  historical 
evidence  of  such  an  origin  for  the  Bible,  certainly  popular  theolo- 
gians, anxious  to  prove  it,  would  long  ago  have  given  it  to  the 

world. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  some  of  the  very  first  writers  of  the 

ehurch  j  and  they  testify, 

1st.  That  they  do  not  know  when  the  various  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  written ;  and, 

2nd.  That  they  do  not  know  who  wrote  tho  different  books  or 
parts  of  books.  That  they  do  not  know,  but  may  "  suppose," 
that  Abraham  wrote  family  memoirs,  that  Moses  edited  them, 
and,  with  the  help  of  Aaron  and  Joshua,  filled  out  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  and  then  left  Ezra,  Malachi,  or  a  cotnijariy  of  angels,  to 
re-edit  it ;  adding  tvhat  was  ncccsmry  for  "  connecting,  illustrat- 
ing, and  completing  them." 

3d.  That  they  do  not  know  when  the  Old  Testament  was  com- 
pleted either  in  manuscript  or  as  a  canon,  or  by  whofn  the  canon 
was  closed  ;   whether  by  Ezra,  Nehcmiah,  Malachi,  or  all,  or 

neither. 

4th.  That  the  Old  Testament  books  have  undergone  important 
radical  changes  and  corruptions  both  before  and  al'tcr  the  forma- 
tion  of  the  canon.  That  the  Septuagint  —  the  oldest  version  of 
any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  — is  corrupted.  The  eight  hun- 
dred and  forty  marginal  readings  are  proof  of  this  corruption  of 
the  Hebrew  text. 


20 


€¥!'  A  P  T  V  1 1     T  T  T 
JkJk  JJL:  JL     X   nJUi  Xw        X   JL   Jl  • 

•PHH    MBW    TBSTAMEM-T. 

And  now  let  as  come  to  tlie  New  Testnment  writings.  Is 
there  any  Iiistorieal  evideoco,  outside  of  the  books  themselves,  to 
flliow  that  thej  were  miraculously  composed  and  written  ?  That 
the  authors  were  ••infallibly  inspired"  of  God?  I  affirm  (hat 
there  is  not  a  single  page  of  such  history.  I  will  prove  this, 
mlfio,  by  the 

ADMISSICW  OF   "christian"   SCHOLARS. 

Let  us  ask,  first,  in  what  language  was  the  New  Testament 
written?  It  is  commonly  thought  that  it  was  all  written  in  the 
Greek.     But  let  us  see  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case. 

Dr.  llobinson,  in  his  Calmct,  says :  •*  It  has  been  maintained 
by  many  tliat  Matthew  wrote  his  GospeJ  in  Syriac,  and  that  it 
was  afterwards  translated  into  the  Greek,  whether  by  himself  is 
not  certain,  tkmgk  it  is  kighhj probable."  lie  further  continues : 
••The  time  when  this  Gospel  was  written  is  very  U7i€ertain." 
Again,  he  says:  •«  It  has  been  much  disputed  whether  it  was  writ- 
ten in  Hebrew  or  Greek.  The  uniinimous  testimony  of  ancient 
writers  is  in  favor  of  a  Hebrew  original,  and  that  it  was  written 
for  the  Hebrew  Christians*  But,  on  the  other  band,  the  accu- 
racy of  this  testimony  is  drawn  into  question;  there  is  no  his- 
torioal  evidence  of  a  translation  into  Greek.  Critics  of  the 
greatest  name  are  arraigned  on  both  sides  of  the  question." 
(See  Eobinson's  Calmet,  article  Matthew.) 

Again :  *•  It  is  unequivocally  affirmed  Matthew  wrote  his  Gos- 
pel while  in  Judea;  but  whether  in  the  Hebrew  or  Syriac  lan- 
guage, then  common  in  the  country,  or  in  the  Greek,  cannot  be 
deiermined.*^ 

So,  too,  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  in  our  Greek 
Testaments  as  if  original  in  that  language,  though  it  is  strange 
that  God  should  send  a  people  a  revelation  in  any  but  their  own 
langnage.    Syriac  at  this  time  was  more  spoken  by  the  Jews 


21 

than  the  Hebrew.     «  Origen,"  says  Dr.  Scott,  •'  and  some  others, 
are  of  opinion  that  it  was  written  in  either  Hebrew  or  Syriac. 
Now.  reader,  what  is  your  "  opinion  "  about  it  ? 

My  opinion  is  that  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  our  divines 
don't  know  in  what  language  their  Bible  was  written,  at  least 
a  part  of  it,  or  when  it  was  written.     Dr.  Davidson  is  a  so  in 
the  fog  on  this  subject.     He  seems  to  think  it  was  a  mixture 
If  several  languages;   of  Hebrew,  Greek,  Syriac  and  others^ 
(See  Vol.  n.,  pp.  1-4.)     We  often  hear,  from  the  pulpi  ,  and 
see  published  from  the  religious  press,  a  great  deal  ot   talk 
about  original  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament;  and  appeals 
to  them  by  Doctors  of  Divinity  to  settle  their  texture  quar 
rels     But  all  this  talk  about  original  manuscripts  is  either  pious 
ignorance  or  pious  fraud;   for,  according  to  the  best  church 
authorities,  there  is  not  a  single  manuscript  m  existence  prior  to 
the  fourth  century;  and,  according  to  some  church  writers,  there 
are  none  prior  to  the  sixth  century.     All  the  manuscripts  now  m 
existence  are  only  copies  of  other  copies,  and  so  on  for  three  or 
five  centuries  of  the  church  history.     Take  the  following  from 

Christian  writers  as  proof. 

Davidson's  Bib.  Criticism,  Vol.  n.,  p.  12 :  " Jlie  autograpts 
of  the  New  Testament  have  perished  irrevocably.  What  ma- 
terial the  writers  made  use  of  can  only  be  conjectured. 

Again,  on  the  thirty-eighth  page,  he  says:  "It  .s  somewhat 
remarkable  that  no  trace  of  these  autographs,  or  of  primitive 
exemplars,  can  be  found  in  early  history.  Writers,  living  vc.-y 
near  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  do  not  speak  of  or  appeal  to 

*'"'"a  passage  has  been  often  quoted  from  Tertullian's  works, 
as  referring  to  the  autographs.  He  ^P-l^^  f  ' -'^"  "" 
K/er«>'- authentic  letters.  Bat  it  is  certain  that  this  Father 
did  not  intend  the  nutographs,  else  he  would  have  m^-\f^l 
them  in  his  writings  against  M.rcion,  and  so  saved  himself  the 
trouble  of  a  lengthened  argumentation.  A  smgle  r^kren^ei^ 
the  ariffinals  themselves  would  have  proved  Marcion  s  falsittca- 
tions.    But  TertuUian  did  not  so  terminate  the  controversy;  and 


•pn- 


9^ 

Am 


hence  it  is  fairly  iiifcrred  that  the  autographs  were  not  known  to 

be  in  existence.  The  same  remark  may  be  applied  to  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  other  Christian  Fathers.  In  their 
disputatioES  with  ^Heretics '  they  never  dreamed  of  appcalir^g  to 
what  must  have  been  an  infallible  tribunal  —  the  originals ;  but 
they  reason  and  adduce  proofs  as  if  they  knew  nothing  of  auto- 
graphs." If  the  **  Fathers  "  knew  of  any  such  autographs,  would 
the?  not  have  taken  and  kept  them,  and  used  them  to  convert  the 
world  arouDd  them?-  (si,  David.  Crit..  Vol.  „.,  pp.  40-43.) 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  ]\Iarsh*s  Translation  of  Mi- 
chaelis,  a  profound  Christian  writer : 

*'  No  manuscript  of  these  writings  (the  New  Testament  books) 
now  in  existence,  is  prior  to  the  sixth  century ;  and  various  read- 
ings, which,  as  appears  from  the  quotations  of  the  Fathers,  were 
in  the  texts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  are  to  be  found  in  none  of 
the  manuscripts  at  present  remaining;  "*****  and  in  our  com- 
mon edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  are  many  readings  which 
•re  not  in  a  single  manuscript,  but  are  founded  on  mere  eonjec- 
ture."  »  *  *  «*Tlie  confusion  unavoidable  in  these  versions 
had  arisen  to  such  a  height  that  St.  Jerome,  in  his  preface  to  the 
Gospels,  complains  that  no  one  copy  resembles  another." 

THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CAKON. 

Again,  let  me  ask,  when  was  the  New  Testament  Canon  begun 
and  completed,  and  by  whom,  and  where  ?  History  gives  us  only 
conjecture  on  this  subject.  Various  opinions  are  entertained  by 
eminent  scholars  on  this  v^ry  important  part  of  our  Bible's  his- 
tory. We  can  find  no  sure  or  satisfactory  data  to  rest  upon. 
Take  the  following  quotations  as  proof. 

Blosheim,  the  great  Eoclesiastieal  Historian  of  modem  times, 
says,  in  Vol.  i.,  p.  72  :  ''As  to  the  time  wAe»  and  the  persons 

%icAot»  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  collected  into 
one  body  or  volume,  there  are  various  opinions  or  rather  con- 
jectures of  the  learned ;  for  the  subject  is  attended  with  great 
and  almost  inexplicable  difficulties  to  us  of  these  late  times." 
Also,  Dr.  Lardner,  in  his  work  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity, 


23      . 

declares  that,  »  Even  as  late  as  the  sixth  century  the  New  Testa- 
ment canon  was  not  settled  by  any  authority  that  was  considered 
decisive,  or  that  wus  universally  received ;  but  Christian  people 
were  at  liberty  to  judge  for  themselves,  according  to  the  evidence, 
concerning  the  genuineness  of  writings  proposed  to  them  as  apes- 

tolical."  ^,     .        „ 

Dr.  Davidson  (Vol.  i.,  p.  34)  says,  there  was  a  collection  ot 
some  of  the  New  Testament  books  as  early  as  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century ;  but  that  six  books,  namely,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  Apocalypse,  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  that 
of  Jude,  and  the  Second  and  Third  of  John,  were  not  received 
as  inspired,  as  canonical.     But,  while  that  subject  is  thus  ob- 
Bcured  by  the  conjectures  of  the  learned,  and  the  contradictions 
of  historians,  there  are  yet  some  indications,  quite  significant, 
that  the  Council  of  Nice  was  the  most  important  as  the  instru- 
ment of  settling  the  canon  of  Scriptures ;  notwithstanding  it  is 
quite  certain  that  after  councils  remodelled  the  doings  of  the 
Nicene  Council.     Many  books,  adopted  by  the  earlier  councils  as 
divine,  were  rejected  by  the  later  ones  as  spurious ;  and  often 
books  were  admitted  into,  or  thrown  out  of  the  canon,  by  most 
meagre  majorities.     These  councils  were  held  during  the  dark 
ages,  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  nearly  all  the  history  of  their 
doings  is,  therefore,  obscure.      All  the  evidence  we  have,  m 
church  history,  of  the  divinity  and  credibility  of  the  Bible  is 
drawn  from  the  Catholic  Church,  in  the  deepest  ages  of  her  dark- 
est  corruption.     There  was  no  Protestant  Church  until  after  the 
great  reformers,  Zwingle  and  Luther.     Still,  a  few  facts  have 
leaked  through  the  church,  which  are  indicative  as  to  the  method 
of  Bible-raaking  long  ago  practised  by  it.    The  disgraceful  quar- 
rels  of  the  clergy  and  bishops  in  the  councils  assembled  to  decide 
upon  church  doctrines,  and  to  pass  upon  the  canonicahty  of 
Scriptures,  throw  an  air  of  burlesciue  the  most  ridiculous  on 
their  piety,  and  on  the  sacredfiess  of  our  Bible,  the  fruit  of  their 
decisions.     Just  think  of  God's  giving  an  indispensable  revela- 
tion  to  the  world,  to  save  it  from  eternal  death,  and  then  IcaviDg 
it  in  the  hands  of  a  set  of  men  "  who  held  it  as  a  publicly 


24 


idopted  maxim  that  it  was  not  only  lawful,  but  crnnmeiidahU^  to 
deceive  and  lie  for  the  sake  of  piety  and  religion." 

Dr.  Cotton  Blather,  in  his  "Magnalia  Christi  Americana," 
(Book  Tii.,  p.  442),  informs  us  that  Eutychius,  an  author  of  the 
first  ages,  in  his  account  of  the  doings  of  the  Nicenc  Council, 
lelates,  "That  upon  the  letters  of  Constantine  summoning  the 
council,  there  were  no  less  than  two  thousand  and  forty-eight 
bishops  came  to  town ;  but  that,  in  consequence  of  their  gross 
ignorance  and  errors,  the  emperor,  on  the  suggestion  of  Bishop 
Alexander,  of  Alexandria,  singled  out  but  three  hundred  and 
eighteen,  who  were  all  of  them  orthodox  children  of  peace ;  and 
that,  by  the  emperor's  happy  choosing  and  wielding  of  these  three 
hundred  and  eighteen,  the  orthodox  religion  came  to  be  estab- 
lished."* 

The  decisions  of  this  council  were,  therefore,  only  the  opinions 
of  Constantine,  a  bloody  tyrant  emperor,  whose  hands  were,  when 
he  entered  the  Synod,  dripping  with  the  gore  of  several  mem- 
bers  of  his  own  family .t  Of  course,  he  weeded  out  all  hetero- 
doxy ;  that  is  to  say,  he  sent  off  all  whose  opinions  were  opposed 
to  his  own.     Such  is  orthodoxy ;  and  God  deliver  us  from  it ! 

Constantine  has  been  lauded  to  the  skies  by  the  Protestant 
clergy ;  but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Constantine,  the  Great 
Christian  Emperor,  was  one  of  the  most  superstitious  and  bloody 
of  men.    History  proves  it.     Head  Dr.  Lardner  or  Gibbon. 


CHAPTEE    IV. 

FIOUS     FBAFDS 


OR,  now  IT   MAY  BE  PROPER   TO   USE   FRAUDS  AS  A   MEnTCINE,  AND 
FOR  THE  BENEFIT  OF  THOSE  WHO  MAY  REQUIRE  TO  BE  DECEIVED. 

Such  is  the  title  of  a  whole  chapter  of  Eusebius,  a  celebrated 
Christian  writer,  who  flourished  in  the  fourth  century,  and  Bishop 

*  See  the  Pfeoetralisi,  page  149,  by  A.  J.  Davia 
t  See  Gibbon *8  Decline  and  Fall. 


25 

I.  n  .«  ;«  Pftlpstine  a  man  of  vast  learning,  and  who,  in 
fas'r^p  Ifed  t::d  by  t.e  N.e„e  CouacU  to  deUve.  ^ 
addrelsto  the  Emperor  Constantine.  on  his  entering  into  the 
Council  and  who'  made  the  first  draft  of  the  N.ceae  Creed 

S  Eusebius  Pamphilil  is  not  the  only  ChrxsUan  wnter  of 
nott  Ihas  thus  given  all  posterity  perleet.y  just  and  a  e,ua 
cause  to  reieet  his  entire  testimony  on  all  rehgious  history  and 
doc   int     The  most  learned  and  ..pious"  writers  of   he  J^y 
Christian   church  were  » infected  with  this   leprosy.        M^ 
Ambrose  and  Hilary,  Augustine  and  Gregory  o    Naztan  en  and 
St    J  le,  were  corrupted  with  this  scandalous  doetane  of 
J esuial.  rf  lylny  for  tke  sake  of  religion     These  wr«e 
e,      „„ntod  to  Drove  the  genuineness  of  the  New  Testament. 
OrthHre  e  Wof  thes!  and  other  '.Christian  Fathers; 
Sines  have  attempted  to  build  a  valid  -gument  for  the  cred. 
b  ity  of  the  Bible.    Take  the  following  quotations  as  proof  of  . 
Tfl.     Bishop  Faustus,  in  the  fourth  -7- ^^  ^^-^^ 
for  piety  and  literary  atUinments,  boldly  and  hone^'y  J?^''';"; 
hat ..  I  is  certain  that  the  New  Testament  was  not  wntten  ^y 
Ohrist  himself  nor  by  his  disciples,  but  a  long  while  after  them 
bv"ole  "known  persons,  who,  lest  they  should  not  be  credited 
when  they  wrote  of  affairs  they  were  little  acquainted  with. 
I'd  to  thlirworks  the  names  of  apostles,  or  of  such  as  were 
tToscd  to  have  been  their  companions,  asserting  that  what 
ZJud written  was  according  to  those  persons  to  whom  they 

"Tnl'att'he  says :  "  For  many  things  have  been  inserted  by 
VouranSrs  inX  speeches  of  our  Lord,  which  though  pu 
Tth  undcThis  name,  agree  notwith  his  faith;  "  aud  much  more 

to  the  same  effect.  _  historian, 

Again.     The  reason  assigned  ^y  the  grea* 'snu 
>,    L  •      r     .v,„  <rrpat  and  "  insuperable  difficulty     attenaing 
Mosheim,  for  the  great  ana     ins  V  Testament 

•  „o=t;„.,tmns  concern  nji  the  history  ot  tUe  Pti-w  xe»ui,u. 
our  investigations  concern  ^^^^  Chrisfs  asceu- 

is,  in  his  own  word.,  this  .      *or  o  ^^^^^.^^^^  j^,j 

Bion  into  heaven,  several  histories  ot  nis 

Of  pious  frauds  and  fabulous  wonders,  were  composed  by  peisona 

3 


M 

whom  intentions,  perliaps,  were  not  bad,  but  whose  writings 

iiaooTewd  the  greatest  superstition  and  ignorance.     Nor  was 
Ibis  all;  productions  appeared  which  were  imposed  upon  the 
world  by  fraudulent  men  as  the  writings  of  the  holy  apostles. 
Tkme  apmknfpkd  wrUings  must  have  produced  a  sad  confusion] 
and  rendered  both  the  history  and  doctrine  of  Christ  uncertain, 
had  not  the  ruiers  of  the  church  used  all  possible  care  and  dili^ 
gence  in  separating  the  books  truly  apostolic  from  all  that  spuri- 
ous  trash,  and  conveying  them  down  to  posterity  in  one  vohime. 
And  these  same  •  Rulers  of  the  Church,'  I  will  prove  by  his  own 
words,  hold  it  as  an  adopted  maxim,  that  it  was  right  tp  deceive 
and  Me  when  the  interests  of  their  church  demanded  it.    His 
own  statements  of  their  character  ought  to,  and  will  in  each 
iound  mind,  destroy  entirely  the  credibility  and  testimony  of 
these  same  church  *Miiiers.*  " 

The  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers  are  the  only  authorities 
on  which  the  church  can  build  an  external  historical  argument 
in  favor  of  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testament  ns  a  super- 
hiiroan  work;  and  yet  Moshcim,  Vol.  r.,  pp.  72-78,  gives  us  to 
know  that  not  one  of  the  works  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  espe- 
eially,  can  be  trusted  as  purely  the  work  of  the  author  to  whom 
it  is  ascribed.     Their  names  are  the  following :  ClemUnt,  Igna- 
tius, Polycarp,  and  others.     According  to  :Mo8heim,  not  one  of 
the  works  of  these  men  can  bo  trusted  as  genuine,  while  nearly 
all  are  admitted  universally  to  be  forgeries.  (Moshcim,  Vol.  i.,pp. 
74-78.)     **Nor  did  any  aposHe,  or  any  one  of  their  immctliatc 
disciples,  collect  and  arrange  the  principal  doctrines  of  Clirifstian- 
ity  in  a  scientific  or  regular  system."    The  "Apostle's  Creed  " 
was  extant  i«  the  first  century,  but  Mosheim  says,  page  79,  that 
though  this  creed  was  attributed  to  Christ's  ambassadors  from  the 
fourth  century  onward, "  it  is  at  this  day  unanimously  agreed  that 
this  opinion  is  a  mistake."    So  this  "  Apostolic  Creed,"  the 
only  summary  of  ChriBtian  doctrine  in  the  first  century,  is  not 
aitiiority. 

"  In  the  second  century,"  he  says,  "  the  whole  Christian  sys- 
ifn  was  still  comprised  in  a  few  precepts  and  propositions;  nor 


27 

did  the  teachers  publicly  advance  any  Joctrm^^^^^^^ 
Tontained  in  what  is  called  the  Apostle's  Creed.      (Vol.  i., 

^'On'page  ISO,  of  Vol.  i.,  he  tells  us  that  the  doctrine,  «'that  it 
was  not  only  lawful,  but  commendable,  to  dece^ve  and  he  for  the 
:Z  of  tJh  and  piety,  early  spread  among  f^^^^^  ^^ 
the  second  century.  »  Numerous  forger^s  of  ^^oU^^^^^^  '^^ 
names  of  eminent  men,  sibylline  verses,  and  a  large  mass  ot 
r  r  raTb,  appeared  in  this  and  the  following  centunes." 
0:^odox^^^^^^^  engaged  in  this  nefarious  business 

A  1  are  universally  admitted  to  ^Yr^-'''r\!'lTZ 
Again,  he  affirms,  on  page  79,  nor  did  the  apostles,  or  any  one 
Xir  immediate  disciples,  collect  and  arrange  the  pnnc^U3. 

On  page  155  of  Vol.  i.,   in   the  third  century,  Mosheuu 
admits  that  "piousfrauds  and  impositions  were  ^-^^^ 
of  the  extemUn  of  Christianity-     On  page  11>D    he   ad^^^^^^^^ 
^\hat  a  change  in  -losiastical  goven..ent  w^^ 
corrupt  state  of  the  clergy  ; "  and,  on  the  lObth  page,  dUa  s 
rrllsive  and  disgraceful  fl.ct,  that,  in  ceusequeoce  of  the 
™l  persuasion  tha^t  celibacy  was  a  true  state  for  those  who 
Sed  I  be  holy,  the  "  clergy  admitted  to  the.r  houses  a^^^ 
beds  certain  holy  females  who  had  ^^^^f^^^^^^^l 
affirming,  however,  most  beugio.slv    ha^^thoy  ^  sltl~^^ 
ful  intercourse  with  these  holy  sisters,"     On  the  1^^^^   P;^^^ 
speaks  of  the  great  mass  of  forged  books  P^l-^^/P-^;;^;^^ 
over  the  signatures  of  distinguished   men,  and   concludes   h  s 
Larks  Witt  the  following :  "  Thus,  they  who  ^^^^fj^^^^^ 
all  others  in  piety,  deemed  it  a  pious  act  to  -^^l^l^^^^^ 
and  fraud  in  support  of  pie^2^."    A  strange  kmd  of     piety 

*^0f  the  fourth   century,  he   says,  page  f  0:    "This  unen- 

lightened  piety  of  the  --;;j^^^^^^^^^^^ 

endless  frauds  of  persons  who  were  base  enougu  tu 

C  of  the  ig—  aad  errors  of  others,  d-genuousjr  to 

advance  their  own  ioterests."    Then  follows  a  long  detail  of  the 

grossest  impositions  imaginable.     And,  on  the  207th  page,  he 


'i  \ 


28 


©ontimies :  "  To  these  moral  defects  of  the  age  mist  be  adde<i 
two  principal  errors  now  well-nigh  publicly  Edoptetl,  and  from 

which  afterwards  immense  evils  resulteil.  The  first  was,  that  to 
"deceive  and  lie  «  a  mriue,  when  religion  can  be  promoted  by  it." 
If  this  is  virtue  and  religimi,  then  both  can  come  from  Hell.  He 
continues  :  ••  This  had  been  approved  in  the  preceding  centuries ; 
and  it  is  almost  incredible,  what  a  mass  of  the  most  insipid 
fable*,  what  a  kmt  of  piom  fidsehoois  have,  through  all  the 
centuries,  grown  out  of  it,  to  the  great  detriment  of  true  reli- 
gion." "  If  some  inquisitive  person  were  to  examine  the  con- 
duct and  writings  of  the  greatest  and  most  pious  teachers  of  this 
century,  I  fear  he  would  find  about  all  of  tliem  infected  with 
this  leprosy.  I  cannot  exeept  Ambrose,  nor  Hilary,  nor  Augus- 
tine, nor  Gregory  of  Naz,  nor  Jerome." 

Again,  says  Mosheim  :  **  Those  authors  who  have  treated  of 
the  innocence  and  sanctity  of  the  priinitive  Christians,  have 
fallen  into  an  error  of  supposing  them  unspotted  models  of  piety 
and  virtue ;  and  a  gross  error,  indeed,  it  is,  as  the  strongest  tes- 
timony too  evidently  proves."' 

Again,  he  says  (Vol.  i.,  p.  128) :  •*  If  one  deserves  the  title 
of  a  bad  master  in  morals,  who  has  no  just  ideas  of  the  proper 
boundaries  and  limitations  of  Christian  duties,  nor  clear  and  dis- 
tinct conceptions  of  the  different  virtues  and  vices,  nor  a  percep- 
tion of  those  general  principles  to  which  recurrence  should  be 
had  in  all  discussions  respecting  Christian  virtue,  and  therefore 
very  often  talks  at  random,  and  blunders  in  expounding  divine 
laws;  though  he  may  say  many  excellent  things,  and  excite  in  us 
considerable  emotion,  —  then  I  readily  admit  that  in  strict  truth 
this  title  belongs  to  many  of  the  Fathers." 

Scalliger  declares  that  *•  The  Fathers  put  into  their  Scriptures 
whatever  they  thought  would  suit  their  purpose." 

If  such  is  our  external  historical  testimony,  what  must  be  our 
faith?  An  amount  of  gullibility,  which  the  Hottentots  might 
blush  to  own,  is  requisite  to  faith  in  such  testimony.  The  fol- 
lowing is  the  sum  of  the  historical  evidence  relating  to  the  origin 
of  the  Mew  Testament  books: 


«<7 


1st.  It  is  admitted,  by  the  brightest  luminaries  of  the  church, 
that  they  don't  know  in  what  language  some  of  the  most  important 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  ,•  whether  in  Hebrew, 
Greek,  or  Syriac  ;  and  that  "  the  time  when  these  parts  were 
written  is  very  uncertain" 

2d.  That  there  are  no  original  apostolic  autographs  in  exist- 
ence, and  not  a  single  particle  of  evidence  in  history  that  there 
ever  were  any  such  originals ;  that,  if  there  had  been,  the  Chris- 
tians would  surely  have  quoted  them  in  their  disputations  with 
heretics.  But  they  do  not  so  quote ;  and  hence  we  may  safely 
infer  their  nonexistence. 

3d.  That  we  don't  know  when  or  by  whom  the  New  Testament 
books  were  collected  into  one  volume ;  that  we  don't  know  when 
the  New  Testament  canon  was  closed,  or  by  whom  i  that,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Lardner,  it  was  not  closed  as  late  as  the  sixth 
century. 

4th.  That,  from  the  very  "ascension"  of  Jesus,  —  according 
to  Mosheim  and  others,  —  "  forged  histories  of  his  life  and  doc- 
trines were  palmed  upon  the  world ; "  that  orthodox  Christians 
were  engaged  in  this  nefarious  business.  These  "  pious  frauds," 
in  the  language  of  Neander,  a  Christian  historian,  "  overflowed 
the  church  like  a  flood,"  from  the  first  to  the  thirteenth  century} 
that,  according  to  Mosheim,  the  collection  of  the  books  waa, 
probably,  the  work  of  "  Church  Kulers,"  as  was  also  their  can- 
onization; and  that  these  "Church  Rulers"  ^^held  it  not  ordy 
lawful^  but  crnnmeTidable,  to  deceive  and  lie  for  the  sake  of  piety 
and  religion;^''  that  the  most  eminent  Christian  Fathers,  such  as 
Ambrose,  Hilary,  Jerome,  and  others,  —  even  Euscbius  Pam- 
philii, — were  infected  with  this  leprosy;  their  works  being  proof 
of  the  fact. 

5th.  That  the  Christian  Fathers,  on  whose  testimony  alone 
can  be  built  any  plausible  argument  in  favor  of  the  credibility 
of  the  New  Testament  books,  are  not  adequate  witnesses ;  are 
perjured  witnesses,  holding  it  a  virtue  to  tell  lies  for  the  interest 
of  their  religion  and  their  church.  That,  therefore,  we  cannot 
accept  their  testimony  on  any  point  of  religious  faith  or  doctrine 

8* 


so 


31 


of  1  historical  nature.    Indeed,  fclieir  testimony  is  good  for  noth- 
ing as  the  basis  of  an  external  argnmcnt. 

But  snppose  it  be  admitted  that  the  apostles  did  write  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  just  as  we  ha?e  them  to-day.  It 
is  begging  the  whole  question  to  assume  that  they  wrote  under 
m  iiZllible  and  mirations  inspimtion  from  God.  It  would  bo 
foolish  to  admit  such  claims  without  any  proof,  even  iP  the  wri- 
toM  of  the  New  Testament  made  them.  But  no  New  Testament 
writer  claims  infallibility. 

All  the  foregoing  historical  facts  are  from  the  very  best  Chris- 
tian writers.  Now,  reader,  what  faith  can  you  have  in  such 
testimonj  as  this?  My  quotations  are  all  civen  —  are  all  identi- 
fied.  I  have  made  them  with  the  books  before  n.e.  You  can 
turn  to  the  authors  referred  to,  aod  prove  every  one  of  them,  if 
yon  have  any  doubts  on  this  point.  You  will  find  a  vast  deal 
more  to  the  .same  effeet  in  each  of  them,  if  jou  will  take  the 
p.u»ton«d.hem.     I  hope  you  wi.). 

The  history  of  the  so-called  Christian  Church,  from  the  first 
to  the  nineteenth  century,  ii  a  hoiTible  detail  of  superstition, 
fanaticism',  bigotry,  intolerance,  'UsuTpation,  tyranny,  corruption, 
murder,  blood,  and  crime.  Not  a  single  century  but  it  has  stained 
by  the  blood  of  the  children  of  God.  It  has  been,  and  is  to-day, 
the  tool  of  despotism,  the  support  of  slavery,  and  the  "  exploit- 
erer  "  of  the  human  race.  It  has  canonized  villains  and  knaves; 
compelled  the  worship  of  old  pieces  of  wood  and  dead  men's 
bones;  burned  God's  noble  image  at  the  stake;  and  crushed  out 
freedom  from  many  a  soul.  I  do  not  say  there  are  no  good  per- 
sons in  the  church,  I  speak  of  the  church  as  an  organization, 
M  a  great  historical  fact,  I  do  not  deny  that  some  of  its  doc- 
trines are  true,  or  that  some  of  its  principles  have  had  a  good 
effect  upon  the  race. 

If  there  ever  was  a  perfect  Bible  in  existence,  we  have  it  not 
now.  Our  common  version  is  only  a  translation  made  by  weak 
and  erring  men,  who  did  err  egregiously  in  their  translation,  as 
■ome  of  the  most  eminent  doctors  of  divinity  amply  testify. 


This  is  corroborated  also  by  the  very  numerous  calls  for  newer 
and  better  ones. 

Bellamy,  Fuller,  DeWotte,  Gesenius,  and  the  immortal  Ken- 
nicott,  and  many  more,  are  loud  in  their  complaints  against  the 
mistaken  renderings  in  King  James'  version.  Scores  of  new 
translations  have  been  made  to  remedy  the  defects  of  our  com- 
mon version  ;  but  still,  none  are  yet  perfect.  John  Wesley  made 
a  new  translation  for  his  followers.  In  Waukesha,  Wisconsin,  not 
long  since,  I  saw  a  translation  made  by  Dr.  Conquest,  of  the 
Congregational  Church,  England,  on  the  back  of  which  was 
printed,  in  letters  of  gilt,  "  The  Bible,  vnth  twenty  thoiisarid 
emefidatiom."  The  Baptists  have  made  a  new  translation  for 
their  own  use.  English  Unitarians  have  made  a  great  many; 
and  still  none  are  entirely  satisfactory.  The  great  and  learned 
Dr.  Kennicott  has  the  following  quotations  as  proof  of  the  bad 
work  of  King  James'  translators.  lie  declares,  after  stating  the 
causes  of  mistaken  renderings,  "  A  new  translation,  therefore, 
prudently  undertaken,  would  be  a  great  blessing;  "  and  then  ap- 
peals to  the  British  Legislature  to  grant  it.  But  six  years  after, 
he  eonios  out  clamorously  against  King  James'  version,  and  backs 
his  appeal  with* the  following  among  other  quotations : 

'*  Judges  15  :  4.  Three  hundred  foxes  tied  tail  to  tail,  instead 
of  wheatcn  sheaves  placed  end  to  end.  '  And  Sampson  went 
and  caught  three  hundred  foxes,  and  look  firebrands,  and  turned 
tail  to  tail,  and  put  a  firebrand  in  the  midst  between  two  tails.' 
(1771,  vide  Scripture,  p.  71.) 

"  Also,  1st  Kings  17  :  6.  Elijah  not  fed  by  ravens,  but  by 
Arabs.  *  And  the  ravens  brought  him  bread  and  flesh.'  In  tlie 
Jlehrew,  'and  the  orbim  (a-ll-a-B-im)  brouglit  him  bread  and 
flesh,'  instead  of  '  crows.'  " 

He  gives  many  examples  of  an  equally  striking  character. 
"These  things,"  says  an  eminent  scholar,  "were  published  at 
Oxford,  ninety-five  years  ago."  I  could  quote  a  long  list  of 
authors  and  divines  who  have  called  for  a  newer  and  better 
translation  of  the  Bible.  But  it  is  already  a  notorious  fact,  and 
none  but  ignorant  persons  will  deny  it. 


M 


33 


!jl 


But  it  will  nol  mm  the  Bible  to  appeal  to  origiBal  manu- 

fMsripts ;  for  there  are  none,  m  I  have  before  sliowo.  The  Greek 
aid  Hebrew  Bibles,  from  which  our  and  aU  translations  are 
made,  are  onlj  compilatioiis  of  diierent  manuscripts;  which 
nanuacripti  tm  not  oriiziDals,  but  only  copies  or  traiucripts. 
of  BtiU  earlier  maouserip..  (See  David.  Bib.  Grit..  Vol.  u..  p. 
315.) 

"  Historj  fails  to  brinir  to  lijjht  the  changes  which  the  New 
TeBtan.eatL.ks  underwL.  io  'egard  to  thei 'text,  ^  tf.  eaHUs. 
'period.  How  thej  were  preserved  during  the  first  two  centu- 
ries, with  what  care  they  were  copied,  how  often  they  were 
transcribed,  with  what  degree  of  veneration  they  were  looked 
upon  by  the  different  churches  and  Christians,  how  much  author- 
ity was  attributed  to  them,  by  what  test  they  were  kept  apart 
from  siHiilar  writings  afterwards  termed  apochryphd  ;  these  are 
interesting  questions  to  which  precise  &r  definite  answers  cannot 
be  given."     (See  David.  Bib.  Grit,  Vol.  ii.,  p  31.) 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  consideration,  we  do  know  that 
there  is  not  a  version,  or  manuscript,  or  printed  edition,  that  is 
not  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  corrupted.  l>r.  John  Mill,  en- 
Garaged  and  aided  by  Bishop  Fell,  gave  to  tffo  world  a  new 
edition  in  1707,  folio,  Oxford,  of  the  dreek  Testament ;  in  which 
he  shows  that  the  Mew  Testament  manuscripts  and  versions  con- 
tain no  less  than  thirty  thousand  various  readings ;  that  is,  that 
the  manuscripts  differ  in  thirty  thousand  different  places.  Since 
John  Mill,  edition  after  edition  htis  appeared,  until  not  less  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  various  readings  of  the  New 
Testament  manuscripts  alone  have  been  found  and  published  to 
the  world.     (See  David.,  Vol.  n.,  p.  123.) 

And  yet,  with  all  these  facta  before  them,  we  often  hear  clergy- 
luen  saying,  **  There  are  no  important  radical  changes  in  the  New 
Testament,"  Ciin  human  jjredulity  and  ignorance  go  further? 
One  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  contradictions  or  differences  in 
the  .New  Testament  manuscript  texts,  and  yet  no  important  or 
radical  corruption !  On  a  close  calculation,  in  round  numbers, 
there  are  only  about  one  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  words  in 


the  whole  New  Testament.  How  can  any  sane  mind  believe  that 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  variations  in  the  different  manu- 
scripts of  this  New  Testament,  containing  only  about  ten  thou- 
sand more  words  than  mistakes,  will  produce  no  radical  change 
in  the  facts,  doctrines  or  teachings,  of  this  book  ?  The  idea  is 
Just  this :  God  writes,  or  causes  to  be  written,  a  book  or  books, 
which  together  constitute  his  Infallible  Word,  and  then  leaves 
men  to  handle  it,  to  copy  it,  to  translate  it,  to  edit  and  re-edit  it, 
until  its  various  manuscripts  differ  one  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand times,  and  yet  no  radical  error  or  corruption  has  been  ad- 
mitted into  it !  Header,  do  you  not  see  that  a  single  error  con- 
demns its  infallibility,  and,  of  course,  "dimnity''?  I  grant 
you  that  many  of  these  variations  are  small,  of  little  conse- 
quence ;  but  can  you  believe  that  in  this  great  mass  there  are  no 
important  ones  ?  If  you  can,  I  will  forever  settle  this  with  you, 
by  the  testimony  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Adam  Clarke. 

The  first  passage  to  which  I  shall  refer  is  found  in  1  John  5  : 
7.  *•  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven :  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are 
one."  On  this  passage  rests  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Trinity,"  or 
the  "  Tri'personality  of  God"  Trinitarianism  hangs  on  it  as 
the  most  direct,  if  not  the  only  affirmation  of  this  peculiar  tenet. 
I  believe  it  is  the  only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which 
unequivocally  affirms  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  And  yet  Mr. 
Adam  Clarke,  one  of  the  most  noted  scholars  in  the  Christian 
Church,  in  his  ponderous  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  says  of  this 
verse : 

«*  But  it  is  likely  this  verse  (7th)  is  not  germine.  It  is  want- 
ing in  every  manuscript  of  the  epistle,  toritten  before  tJm  inven- 
tion of  printing,  one  excepted,  the  Codex  Montforti,  in  Trinity 
College,  Dublin. 

" It  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  ancient  versions  but  the  Vul- 
gate; and  even  of  this  version  many  of  the  most  ancient  have 
it  not.  It  is  wanting,  also,  in  almost  all  the  Greek  Fathers,  and 
in  most  even  of  the  Latin." 

Again,  take  another  passage,  2  Tim.  3 :  16.     «  All  Scripture 


M 

is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  &c.    He  says  of  this  passage. 

•*  It  is  not  conecfcly  translated.  It  should  read,  Every  writing, 
divinely  inspired,  is  profitable  for  doctrine,"  &c.  On  this  mistake, 
we  fre(|uently  hear  clergjnien  saying,  the  Bible  claims  in- 
fallibility for  itself.     It  is  only  ridiculous. 

These,  and  many  more  of  an  equally  important  character,  are 
in  question  by  the  best  scholars  of  the  chnrch.  There  is  no  end 
to  the  conflicting  criticisms  and  opinimu  of  the  learned,  on  scores 
of  very  important  passages.  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars  differ 
and  ooiitradict  each  other  endlessly.  Hardly  any  two  agree  on 
some  of  the  most  important  points  in  biblical   criticism    and 


[For  a  long  list  of  their  conflicting  testimony,  sec  Davidson,  Vol. 

IL,  article,  Critical  Examination  of  Passages,  page  382.] 

So  you  see,  kind  reader,  that  all  the  talk  about  original  manu- 
scripts, of  appeals  to  them,  is  only  sheer  folly,  ignorance,  or 
••pious  fraud."     Priests  cannot  settle  their  textual  wars  by  any 
such  appeals ;  for  Greek  and  Hebrew  Bibles  are  not  one,  but 
many;    and  tliey  differ  endlessly,  and   contradict   each   other. 
Bibilical  critics  cannot  agree  which  manuscripts  are  of  most 
authority.     All  is  uncertainty,  contradiction  and  dissatisfaction. 
And  who  shall  decide  when  the  doctors  of  such  a  diseased  and 
dilapidated   divinity  disagree?     Now,  reader,  when  you  hear 
clergymen  talking  loudly  about  original,  sacred  manuscripts,  you 
may  know  it  is  only  pious  ignorance  and  priestly  prate.     I  defy 
contradiction  on  these  points.     There  is  no  perfect  Bible  in 
existence  —  all  are  corrupt.     None  are  genuine,  pure.     How 
many  such  mistakes,  or  interpolations  as  these  I  have  just  quoted 
from  Clarke   and  Kennicott,  would  it  take  to   annihilate  the 
divinity  of  the  Bible?    There  are  many  more  such. 


35 


THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

CHAPTER  V. 

If  the  Bible  "  is  our  only  infallible  rule  of  religious  faith  and 
practice,"  it  ought  to  carry  the  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  fiict 
on  its  face — on  its  every  page — in  each  and  all  its  statements;  for 
it  is  assumed  to  be  an  indispensable  revelation  of  God's  will  to 
man  —  to  each  man  —  to  all  mankind.     If  so,  it  should  be  ad- 
dressed  directly   to   each   individual  —  to   his   senses  —  to  his 
reason,  and  to  his  religious  nature  —  to  his  consciousness ;  and 
so  addressed  as  to  furnish  the  indubitable  evidence  of  its  origin 
and  authority  within  itself;  not  through  Paley,  or  Lardner,  or 
Home,  or  Keith,  or  any  human  collateral  aids  whatever.     Its 
divinity  should  be  a  self-emdent  divinity.     On  every  page,  and 
in  every  line,  it  should  blaze  and  shine  with  an  unmistakable  light. 
Its  divinity  must  be  exceedingly  dubious,  if  such  huge  libraries 
as  fill  all  Christendom,  entitled  "  Evidences  of  Christianity,"  are 
necessary  to  its  proof.     Can  you  see  the  sun  by  holding  up  a 
rush-lifjht  towards  it  ?     Does  God  need  human  aid  to  prove  his 
divinity,   or  to  throw   light    on  the   page  of  his  own   Word  ? 
Every  book  written  to  prove  the  miraculous  origin  of  the  Bible 
is  only  a  'priTna  facia  acknowledgment,  on  the  part  of  the  writer, 
that  the  book  itself  is  inadequate  to  sustain  itself,  or  to  carry 
conviction  to  the  reader,  of  its  divinity.      God  needs  human 
help !     This  is  blasphemous  to  God,  and  an  insult  to  his  Word. 
Do  men  write  books  to  prove  the  divinity  and  glory  of  the  sun 
and  stars?     Christians  write  books  in  defence  of  the  Bible,  and 
against  the  destructive  attacks  of  "  Infidels,"  as  if  they  feared  it 
would  fail  and  fall.     Do  men  fear  lest  the  Alps  shall  fall,  or 
stars  go  out?     The  circulation  of  the  Bible  is  left  to  the  caprice 
of  erring  men—  and  (alas  for  the  world,  if  it  be  God's  word ! )  — 
often  to  the  selfishness  of  sectarian  churches,  which,  for  cen- 
turies,   have   quarrelled  and  fought,    anathematized  and  burnt 
each  other  at  the  stake  in  this  world,  and  damned  each  other  to 
hell-fire  and  brimstone  in  the  next. 


!! 


li  »i 


m 

The  Bible  is.  to-day.  depeiid«t  on  printiog-presaes  and  ml- 

«.dB.  steamboats  aed  sails,  for  its  «^.*«'^«^«^•/f  ^'^^^^^^ 
Boder  tbe  control  of  the  moncy-grasping  spirit  of  a  commercial 
age.    It  goes  wy  slowly  over  the  world.     ^^  g;*^'^^  "^^'^T^ 
cowtons  men^move  it.     Is  the  iodi.peosable  hght  of  God. 
coMnteoance.  then,  dependent  on  the  contmgeney  of  ^^^-^^^^ 
and  wisdom^    The  Bible  is  bought  and  sold  ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
IIP  by  the  traffic.    Does  God  -  "  mr  Falher   --tke  Father  oj 
ike  Llions^  Jewish.  Indian  and  Chinese-does  He  leave  his 
-Word"  snbjcct  to  the  Yoracions  jaws  of  hnman  eovetousness? 
Will  He  permit  men  to  buy  and  sell  and  get  gain  out  of  His  own 
diTiuity.  miraculously   bestowed  on  tbe  world  ^o/^^^^JJ^^^^ 
death  t    Is  the  indispeosable  truth  of  God  an  arUc  e    f  human 
commerce  1  It  is.  if  the  Bible  be  such  indispensable  truth     W  by 
was  not  the  light  and  the  air  we  breathe  subject  to  a  like  con- 
tml  by  men  ?     Uodoubtedly  it  would  loog  since  have  been  it  it 
could  be.    Are  the  sunlight  and  air  of  more  coimequence  to  he 
body  of  mau  than  the  truth  of  GodV.  moraUnd  -bg-s  aU- 
butes,- the  expression  or  revelation  of  Hm  W  i»   ^  ^^  ^^^  ^r* 
to  his  immortal  nature ;  that  tbe  one  should  be  placed  above  be 
Yond  the  reach  of  human  eovetousness.  and  the  other  be  subject 
lits  damuing  sway  1    Is  air  iodespeosable  to  a.  Indian  s^; 
mnd  God's  word  not  so  to  an  Indian's  souH     Must  the  "  untu- 
tored  Iiidiaii"  wait  for  God's  word  until  a  band  of  "  pale-tace*, 
ie  ships  with  -wings."  print  it.  and  bring  it  across  the  ocean  on 
tbe   deck,  with  rum  and  gunpowder  in  the  hold  under  it,  to 

Christianize  him  with  fire  and  «-^r^ 'T*^  rK^w  of  C^^^^^^^^ 
Becessary  for  an  Indian  to  learn  English  Hebrew  or  G  eek  in 

order  to  bear  God  speak?    What  ]^»«7»:-"^^;^;3^^^^^^^ 
assumptions  of  Christians  about  the  Bible  !     What  ^.rcas^^^^^^^^^ 
at  Divine  Power,  Love  and  Wisdom !     It  is  awful.     No  bias 
phemy  is  so  great  as  that  of  Christians,  and  tho«e  who    hke 

Christians,  shut  up  God's  word  in  an  old  book,  and  damn  all  the 

rest  of  the  world  as  "heathen."  idolatrous  and  infidel,     it  is  a 

rank  insult  to  all  Truth.  -  .Uould  it 

But  to  the  question.    If  thc.Eiblc  be  God  s  Word,  should  it 


87 

not  contain  palpable,  definite,  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  fact 
on  its  every  page  ?  No  one,  not  even  Christians,  will  deny  this. 
But  does  it  contain  such  evidence?  This  is  the  question.  How 
are  we  to  determine  J  By  an  examination  of  its  contents.  But, 
proceediog  in  this  way.  suppose  that  we  have  a  standard  within 
ourselves.  AV  ^  cannot  prove  the  Bible  to  be  perfect,  without  a 
Standard  of  perfection.  We  have  such  a  standard  in  nature,  but 
we  do  not  perfectly  understand  nature,  and  so  are  not  competent 
judges  to  decide  upon  Divine  Perfection.  But  we  can  tell  when 
statements  are  false,  absurd,  contradictory  and  unreasonable, 
which  come  within  the  range  of  our  natural  capacities.  The 
Bible  claims  to  be  addressed  to  us;  therefore,  we  may  justly 
examine  its  contents  in  the  light  which  our  "  Creator  "  bestows 
in  the  constitution  of  things,  and  the  natural  reason,  intuition 
and  consciousness  of  man. 

I  affirm  this  general  proposition  : 

The  Bible  bears  the  unmistakable  evidence  of  human  origin^ 
authority  and  influence, 

I  shall  prove  this  by  proving  the  following  charges : 

1st.  It  gives  false  and  blasphemous  representations  of  God. 

2d.  The  Bible  gives  contradictory  representations  of  God. 

3d.  It  contradicts  Astronomy,  Geology  and  itself,  in  its  ac- 
count of  the  creation. 

4th.  It  represents  the  laws  of  nature  as  suspended,  transcended, 
or  violated. 

5th.  It  contradicts  itself  in  numerous  instances. 

6th.  It  sanctions  political  despotitim. 

Ttk.  It  sanctions  slavery  —  the  sum  of  all  villanies. 

8th.  It  favors  conjugal  despotism. 

9th.  It  sanctions  polygamy  and  concubinage,  or  the  practice 
of  having  many  wives  and  mistresses  in  addition. 

10th.  It  teaches  false  and  dangerous  doctrines. 

11th.  The  New  Testament  wi-iters  misquote  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  often  quote  and  apply,  as  prophecy,  passages  of  Old 
Testament  history,  and,  in  several  instances,  misapply  what  they 
misquote. 


11^ 


I'* 


H 


I 


.#' 


Aed  now  to  the  proof.  1st.  Tlie  Bible  gives  false  and  blas- 
phemous representations  of  God.  It  represeots  him  as  subject 
to  human  limitations  and  infirmities.  It  represents  Him  as 
haviog  a  body  like  men.  In  Gen.  17  :  33,  God  is  represented 
as  appearing  to  Abraham  in  the  shape  of  three  men,  whom, 
all  together,  Abraham  calls  "  Lord.'*  Abraham  is  represented  as 
sajing  to  the  three  men,  in  verse  third,  "  My  Lord,  if  now  I  have 
fonnd  favor  in  thj  sight,  pass  not  away,  I  pray  thee,  from  thy 
iservant." 

This  story  goes  on  to  relate  how  Abraham  asked  his  "  Lord  " 
to  wash  his  feet,  and  rest  «•  yourselves  "  under  a  tree.     It  also 
represents  these  "men  "--the  "Lord"  — as  drinking  7mlk  and 
eating  veai.     Often,  throughout  the  entire  chapter,  is  Abraham 
represented  as  calling  them  •*  Lord."     The  story  winds  up  with 
the  following,  —  verse  33d :  "  And  the  Lord  went  his  way,  as  soon 
as  he  had  done  communing  with  Abraham ;  and  Abraham  re- 
turned unto  hjs  place."     Perhaps  there  are  some  who  will  call 
this  story  ^.nly  an  allegory.     If  so,  I  see  no  reason  why  we  may 
not  call  the  talk  which  Moses  had  on  the  mountain,  when  he  re- 
ceived the  tables  of  the  Law,  an  allegory  also.     Perhaps  some 
will  call  the  word  "Lord"  here  only  a  Ji^re  of  speech.     But 
just  think  of  a  ''/ywre  of  speech  ealimj  veal,  drinking  milk,  and 
washing  their  feet."    Perhaps  it  means  only  to  be  applied  to 
these  men  as  angels,  or  representatives  of  the  "Lord."    If  so. 
why  does  it  not  say  so?    But  suppose  it  does;  do  angels  drink 
milk,  eat  veal,  and  wash   their  feet  ?    Again :  the  story   of 
Jacob's  wrestling-match  with  God  is  another  proof  in  point      It 
IS    found    in    Gen.   32 :   24-32.     Jacob's  name  la   changed 
to  Israel   because  he   "prevailed;"  he  conquered   God   in  a 
wrestling-match,  though  he  got  his  thigh  put  out  in  the  tussle. 
"  Afterwards  Jacob  called  the  name  of  the  place  Peniel :  for  I 
have  seen  God  face  to  face,  and  my  life  is  preserved." 

In  Exodus   31:   17,   God   is  represented  as  getting  tired 

with  the  six  days'  work  of  creation;  as  taking  rest  and  being 

refrcflhed.    According  to  Webster,  "  refreshed  "  means  "  to  give 

,^mm  strength  to;  to  invigorate;  to  relieve  after  fatigue ;  as  to 


89 


refresh  the  body  or  revive  after  depression."  The  Bible  repre- 
sents God  as  saying,  after  commanding  the  Jews  to  observe  the 
Sabbath  forever, — 

«*  It  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the*cliildrcn  of  Israel  forever ;  for  in  six 
days  the  Lord*nuide  heaven  and  earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  rested 
and  was  refreshed." 

Now,  does  the  Omnipotent  get  tired,  and  need  reviving — need 
invigorating?  Will  any  sane  mind  believe  this  of  Deity?  But 
it  may  be  said,  this  expression,  "  and  on  the  seventh  day  he 
rested  and  was  refreshed,"  is  not  to  be  understood  literally; 
"it  is  only  figurative  language."  Suppose  it  is;  ought  the 
figure  to  exceed  the  original  idea  for  which  it  stands?  And 
what  idea  can  we  get  from  this  passage,  even  admitting  it  to  be 
a  figure  ?  Are  we  to  understand  by  it  that  God  did  not  rest, 
and  was  7wt  refreshed?  That  is  not  a  true  figure  of  speech 
which  conveys  an  idea  exactly  the  opposite  from  the  original  con- 
ception of  the  truth  to  be  conveyed.  Again :  in  the  book  of 
Judges,  1 :  19,  it  is  said, — 

**  And  the  Lord  was  with  Judah  ;  and  he  drave  out  the  inhabitants 
of  the  mountain,  but  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  valley, 
because  they  had  chariots  of  iron.** 

This  chapter  is  headed,  "  Tlie  acts  of  Judah  and  Simeon,'* 
and  pretends  to  give  the  history  of  those  acts  literally.  No  one 
can  say  it  is  figurative.  If  it  can  be  called  figurative,  or 
spiritual  in  signification,  so  can  the  stories  of  all  the  miracles, 
and  of  all  the  lives  of  both  the  Jews  and  Christians,  be  called 
the  same.  It  professes  to  be  a  literal  history.  But  it  gives  us 
to  understand  that  the  chariots  of  iron,  which  men  built,  are  too 
strong  for  God  himself.  He  —  God  —  was  not  able  to  drive  out 
the  inhabitants  of  the  valley,  because  they  had  them.  Would 
iron  chariots  have  balked  Napoleon? 

Other  passages  give  us  the  idea  that  God  is  limited  in  pres- 
ence; as  living  up  aloft,  out  of  sight  of  the  earth  and  men;  as 
not  knowing  what  is  going  on  below  until  he  comes  down  to  see; 
M  in  the  case  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  in  Gen.  11 :  5, — 


!^ 


I 


40 


-lEd  the  lorf  oaiiie  down  to  iee  tlio  oity  and  tlie  tow,  wMoli  the 

oHldren  of  men  builded." 

And  also  in  tke  case  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Gen.  18 :  20, 21,— 

••  20.  And  the  Lord  eaid,  Because  the  cry  of  Sodom  and  fiomorrah  ia 

great,  and  because  their  sin  is  very  grievous, 

21.  I  will  go  down  now,  and  eee  whether  they  have  done  altogether  ac- 
cotdlng  to  the  cry  of  it,  which  is  come  nnto  me;  and  if  not,  I  will  know." 

In  these  passages  both  God's  Omnipresence  and  his  Omni- 

ficience  are  denied.    There  are  many  more  of  the  same  character 
ftii  throiigh  the  books  of  the  Bible.    Thus  in  Gen.  30 :  12,  — 

••And  he  said,  lay  not  thine  hand  upon  the  lad,  neither  do  thou  any- 
thing unto  him  ;  for  mom  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast 
not  withlield  %  son,  thine  only  son  from  me." 

In  this  whole  story  of  Abraham's  trial,  the  only  great  idea  ia, 
that  God  was  getting  up  a  scheme  by  which  to  find  out  whether 
Abraham  feared  him  or  not;  and  when  he  gets  "  his  son,  his  only 
son,"  bound  and  laid  upon  the  altar, — his  hand  raised  with  the 
knife  in  it  to  slay  his  son,  —  the  Lord  stops  liim  with,  "/or  nam 
Ikmm  that  tkm  fearesi  God;''  thus  plainly  and  unmistakably 
implying  that  before  "now"  God  did  not  know  whether  ho 
feared  him  or  not.  The  only  object  of  this  experiment,  as  repre- 
sented in  the  passage  above  quoted,  and  throughout  the  whole 
account,  is  to  find  out  something  before  unknown.  Dues  God 
grow  wiser  by  experiment  and  experience  ?  It  cannot  be  said 
that  this  trial  was  instituted  for  Abraham's  good ;  for  such  a 
snpposition  contradicts  the  tenor  of  the  entire  story,  and  also  the 
express  words  of  the  passage  containing  the  only  reason  assigned 
by  God ;  "/or  tmw  Ikmm,''  &c.  To  put  into  Scripture  a  sense 
whicb  thus  contradicts  its  express  declaration  is,  in  effect  and 
fact,  to  ignore  the  Bible,  and  to  make  a  new  one.  So  do  the 
clergy,  almost  universally,  when  a  passage  goes  against  them. 

Take  another  passage  from  Beut.  8:2, — 

«*  And  thou  shalt  remember  all  the  way  which  the  Lord  thy  Qod  led 
thee  these  Ibrly  years  in  the  wilderness,  to  humble  thee,  and  to  prove 


41 

thee,  to  know  what  was  in  thine  heart,  whether  thou  wouldst  keep  hi« 
commandments,  or  not" 

And  yet,  notwithstanding  this  forty  years'  experiment,  God 
still  found  himself  mistaken ;  for  the  Jews  never  proved  faith- 
ful ;  not  even  when  God  himself  is  said  to  have  been  incarnated 
in  flesh,  and  stood  on  the  earth  among  his  ancient  people ;  for 
they  butchered  him  as  a  common  felon.  All  his  schemes  for  the 
Jews  proved  entire  failures.  He  is  represented  as  promising 
them  an  eternal  kingdom,  with  Jerusalem  for  its  capital,  and  its 
ritual  the  old  Law.*     But  more  on  this  point  hereafter. 

The  Bible  represents  God  as  capricious,  fickleminded,  change- 
able; repenting  of  his  own  doings;  as  getting  " sick  at  heart " 
for  his  own  work,  when  experience  had  disappointed  his  expecta- 
tions. The  Mosaic  account  of  creation  presents  God  to  us  as 
the  Omnipotent  Author  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all 
that  in  them  is ;  and  as  saying,  when  he  saw  what  he  had  made, 
that  it  was  '*very  good."  But  soon  after,  we  find  God  repre- 
sented as  cursing  man  and  woman,  and  even  the  inanimate  earth, 
for  the  sin,  if  sin  it  was,  of  a  woman's  eating  an  apple  contrary 
to  his  command,  in  consequence  of  the  talk  of  a  serpent,  which 
then  walked  upright  upon  its  tail,  but  which  ever  since  has  crept 
upon  his  belly  as  his  punishment,  as  a  punishment  for  his  impu- 
dence.    Gen.  0:6, — 

"  And  it  repented  the  Lord  that  he  haH  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it 
grieved  him  at  his  heart." 

This  verse  represents  God  as  sorry  that  he  had  made  man  on 
earth ;  as  being  grieved  at  his  heart.  Now,  if  God  made  man,  and 
made  all  things  else,  and  called  them  good,  they  were  "  very 
good  ;"  and  if  God  be  Omnipotent  and  all  knowing,  why  should  he 
get  sick  at  heart  for  his  own  work  ?  He  could  not,  if  he  were  what 
alone  can  constitute  Divinity  —  Infinite.  The  great  thought  of 
this  whole  story  is  in  the  face  and  eyes  of  Infinite  Power  and 
Wisdom.    But  some  may  say  that  the  word  "  repent,"  as  used  here, 


•  See  Isaiah  —  the  whole. 


4* 


42 


43 


does  not  mean  a  uliangc  of  heart,  or  intention,  or  action  on  the 
part  of  God;  that  it  ie  oiiiy  a  human  way  of  talking,  in  order 
ihat  men  maj  more  easily  understand  God  when  he  speaks  to 


Hi 


But,  if  it  don't  mean  repent,  what  can  it  mean  ?  And  besides, 
if  God  uaes  nueh  language  in  order  that  man  may  understand 
him  better,  and  in  condescension  to  our  use  of  words,  why  does 
he  not  use  it  aa  we  do  ?  How  can  we  know  what  he  means,  if  he 
giies  to  our  forms  of  expression  a  sense  about  which  we  know 
nothing?  This  is  a  condescension  with  a  vengeance  —  to  say 
••repent,"  and  mean  something  else — or,  perhaps,  even  iramu- 
tabiiity.  But  all  these  attempts  to  show  that  the  word  "  repent " 
don't  mean  repent,  as  here  used,  are  scattered  to  the  winds,  by 
the  account  which  follows ;  for  it  represents  God  as  looking  down 
upon  the  world,  and  then  he  saw  that  all  flesh  had  "corrupted 
his  way ;  '*  the  end  of  all  flesh  comes  before  him,  and  he  deter- 
mines to  drown  the  world  with  a  flood.  It  is  done.  This  is  the 
overwhelming  evidence  that  (according  to  the  story)  God  was 
siek  of  his  own  work,  and  so  undertook  to  blot  it  out ;  to  undo 
what  he  had  done ;  and  if  this  is  not  repentance,  then  there  is 
none  on  earth  among  men.  It  was  a  square  turn  round.  In 
Jer.  15 :  6,  God  is  represented  as  saying,  in  consequence  of  the 
wickedness  of  the  Jews, — his  own  cherished  people, —  that  '*  1  am 
weary  with  repenting."  In  1  Samuel  15 :  10,  11,  God  is  repre- 
sented as  saying  :  «*  It  repenteth  me  that  I  have  set  up  Saul  to 
be  king;  for  he  has  turned  back  from  following  me,"  &c.  Now, 
did  not  God  know  Saul,  and  what  he  would  do,  before  he  made 
him  king?  If  he  did  not,  he  is  not  God  —not  infinite.  If  he 
did,  then  why  should  he  repent?  He  did  make  him  king,  know- 
ing the  result ;  and  it  would  be  very  silly,  even  in  a  man,  to  repent 
at  results  of  which  he  was  the  intentional  author. 

But  take  the  following  quotations  as  a  few  specimens  of  the 
false  representations  which  the  Bible  gives  of  God.  The  reader 
will  please  turn  to  the  Bible  and  verify  them  for  himself:  See 
Ex.  32:  14-36;  Judges  2:  18;  1  Chron.  21:  15;  Jer.  18: 
8-10,  also,  Jer.  26  :  19;  Jer.  42  :  10;  and  Jonah  3:  10. 


The  instance  cited,  in  Exo.  32,  is  too  important  to  be  passed 
over  in  silence.  It  contains  a  monstrous  and  even  audacious 
view  of  the  operations  of  the  Divine  Mind.  Moses  was  upon  the 
mount  talking  with  God,  and,  being  gone  a  long  time,  the  people 
became  impatient,  and  called  upon  Aaron  to  make  gods  to  go  be- 
fore them,  ''for  as  for  this"  Moses,"  they  "wot  not  what  had 
become  of  him."  Aaron  made  the  golden  calf,  and  the  people 
made  ofierings  to  it ;  God  discovered  it,  and  thereupon  is  repre- 
sented as  speaking  to  Moses  as  follows, — 

**  7.  Ab(1  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Go,  get  thee  down  ;  for  thy  people, 
which  Miou  broughtest  out  of  tlie  land  of  Egypt,  have  corrupted  themselves. 

8.  They  have  turned  aside  quickly  out  of  the  way  which  I  commanded 
them  ;  they  have  made  them  a  molten  calf,  and  have  worshipped  it,  and 
have  sacrificed  thereunto,  and  said,  These  be  thy  gods,  0  Israel,  which 
have  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt. 

0.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moset3,  I  have  seen  this  people,  and,  behold, 
it  is  a  stitl-necked  people  : 

10.  Now  tlierefore  let  me  alone,  that  my  wrath  may  wax  hot  against 
them,  and  that  I  may  consume  them  ;  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation. 

11.  And  Moses  besought  the  Lord  his  God,  and  said,  Lord,  why  doth 
thy  wrath  wax  hot  against  thy  people,  which  thou  hast  brouglit  forth  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  with  great  power  and  with  a  mighty  hand? 

12.  Wherefore  should  tlie  Egyptians  speak  and  say,  For  mischief  did 
he  bring  them  out,  to  slay  them  in  the  mountains,  and  to  consume  them 
from  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  Turn  from  thy  fierce  wrath,  and  repent  of 
this  evil  against  thy  people.  ' 

13.  Remember  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Israel,  thy  servants,  to  whom  thou 
swarcst  by  thine  own  self,  and  saidst  unto  them,  I  will  multiply  your 
seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  all  this  land  that  I  have  spoken  of  will  I 
give  unto  your  seed,  and  they  shall  inherit  it  forever. 

14.  And  the  Lord  repented  of  the  evil  which  he  thought  to  do  unto  his 
people.' 

This  whole  story  is  one  of  the  most  foolish  and  blasphemous  in 
the  whole  Bible.  The  substance  of  it  is  about  this:  God 
attempts  by  miracles  to  get  the  Jews  into  the  land  of  Canaan. 
On  the  way,  while  Moses  is  gone,  they  make  and  worship  a 
golden  calf,  after  having  seen  the  wonders  of  plague-smitten 


*f 


I 


1^1,  lie  pillars  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  the  miraculotis  passage  of 
the  Red  Sea,  and  a  host  of  other  miracles.  Now,  I  venture  to  say, 
there  is  not  a  savage  in  the  North  American  wilds,  who,  after 
seeing  such  wonders  as  the  Bible  says  were  often  performed 
before  the  Jews  by  God,  could  or  would  have  fallen  thus  into 
calf-worship,  and  that,  too,  against  the  oft-repeated  injunctions 
of  God  himself,  amid  these  wonders.  It  is  not  in  humanity 
to  thus  ignore  its  own  senses,  or  to  forget  such  astounding 
wonders  as  are  here  related. 

But  its  improbability  is  not  the  worst  feature  in  it.  God  sees 
the  Jews  with  their  calf,  becomes  desperate,  wants  Moses  "  to  let 
Mm  a/o»c,'*  —  to  stand  clear — to  keep  from  between  Aim  and 
them,  so  that  he  could  get  mad  enough  to  destroy  them ;  and 
backs  his  appeal  by  promises  of  making  a  great  nation  out  of 
Moses — thus  appealing  to  his  ambition  to  second  the  divine 
wrath.  But  Moses,  more  merciful  tlian  his  God,  beseeches  God, 
makes  appeals  to  his  mercy,  and  to  his  love  of  human  praise,  and 
iiially  jogs  the  divine  memory  —  coaxes  and  wheedles  Divinity 
out  of  his  pasiion  —  gets  God  cooled  off;  and  then  follows  the 
statement,  "  And  the  Lord  repe'tiied  of  ike  evil  which  he  thought 
to  do  unto  his  people.*^  Does  Divinity  become  so  angry  as  to 
forget  His  most  sacred  promises  to  His  own  children?  Can  the 
moral  suasion  of  man  prevail  over  the  "hot  wrath"  of  God? 
Can  His  anger  be  cooled  by  appeals  to  His  fear  of  what  a  parcel 
of  Egyptians  will  say  about  Him?  This  whole  chapter  in 
Exodus  says  yes.  But  who  can  believe  it  ?  If  we  should  find 
such  things  in  a  Mormon  or  a  Hindoo  Bible,  we  would  exclaim, 
**  What  foul  ideas  these  heathens  had  of  God !  '* 

But  all  of  this  story  is  not  yet  told.  It  goes  on :  Moses  goes 
down  from  the  Lord,  with  the  tables  of  stone,  and  when  he  gets 
near  enoug.i  to  see  what  the  Jews  are  about,  forgetting  his  recent 
moral  triumph  over  an  angry  God,  his  "  wrath  waxes  hot;"  he 
throws  down  the  tables  in  a  fit  of  madness,  and,  breaking  them  in 
pieces,  burns  the  golden  calf  in  the  fire,  grinds  it  —  a  adf  of 
gdd — to  powder,  and  strows  it  upon  the  water ;  then,  calling  upon 
th©  sons  of  Levi,  commands  them,  in  the  name  of  God,  to  pmt 


45 

every  man  his  sword  by  his  side,  and  to  "  slay  every  man  his 
brother,  companion,  and  neighbor."  The  order  is  obeyed,  and 
three  thousand  fell  victims  to  the  wrath  of  a  man  who  possessed 
more  mercy  and  kindness  than  his  God.  The  blasphemy  of  this 
passage  is  awliil. 

But  there  is  another,  still  more  blasphemous,  if  possible,  in 
Numbers  14.  It  is  bricHy  the  following:  As  the  Jews  ap- 
proached the  land  of  Canaan,  Moses  sent  twelve  men  —  "  heads  of 
the  children  of  IsraeV  —  to  spy  out  the  land,  and  report  unto 
the  people.  They  spent  forty  days  in  their  tour,  returned,  re- 
ported that  the  country  was  fine,  the  land  fertile,  brought  grapes 
and  pomegranates,  as  specimens  of  its  productions,  but  added,  it 
was  full  of  giants,  of  warlike  nations.  This  disheartened  the 
people ;  "  they  wept  all  night,  and  said,  Would  to  Cod  that  we 
had  died  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  They  rebelled,  and  wanted  to 
choose  a  leader,  and  return  to  Egypt.  Moses,  and  Aaron,  and 
Caleb,  and  Joshua,  urged  them  to  battle,  by  saying,  "Jehovah 
is  with  us."  But  the  people  would  stone  them.  Then  the  glory 
of  God  appeared  before  all  the  children  of  Israel,  and  God  says 
to  Moses, — 

**How  long  will  this  people  provoke  me?"  *  ♦  "I  will  smite  tliem 
with  the  pestilence,  and  disinherit  them,  and  will  make  of  thee  a  greater 
nation  and  mightier  than  they." 

Then  Moses,  again  more  calm  than  God,  says, — 

"  Then  the  Egyptians  shall  hear  it,  and  they  will  tell  it  to  tlie  inliabi- 
tants  of  this  land.  *  »  *  Now,  if  thou  shalt  kill  all  this  people  as  one 
man,  then  the  nations  which  have  heard  the  fame  of  thee  will  speak  say- 
ing :  Because  the  Lord  was  not  able  to  bring  this  people  into  the  land 
which  he  sware  unto  them,  therefore  he  hath  slain  them." 

Then  he  proceeds  to  calm  the  excitement  in  the  bosom  of 
Deity, 
**  Pardon,  I  beseech  thee,  the  iniquity  of  this  people." 

Jehovah  finally  consents  to  do  so,  but  adds, — 

"  As  truly  as  I  live,  all  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  the 
Lord."    "  Because  all  those  men  *  *  *  have  tempted  me  now  these  ten 


I 


46 

tiraea,  mirely  thej  sliall  not  see  the  Itind  wliicli  I  sware  unto  their  fathcri. 
•  •  *  Y«ii:r  caroasseB  shall  full  in  this  wildernees.  *  *  *  In  this  wilder- 
mma  atall  thej  be  eonsuiacd,  and  there  shall  they  die." 

CiiB  any  passage  be  more  blaspheiii,ou8  than  this?  No  far- 
fetched comments,  or  supposititious  speculations,  can  plaster  over 
this  story,  so  as  to  hide  its  innate  deformity;  no  veil  of  "  mys- 
tery **  can  hide  its  horns.  It  is  plain,  matter-of-fact  talk,  but  a 
monstrous  fiction.  Bui  there  are  many  more  passages  of  the 
same  sort. 

But,  if  possible,  the  Bible  gives  still  darker  representations  of 
God.  It  represents  him  as  having  pets — peculiar  favorites  — 
the  Jews,  for  whom  he  oares  more  than  for  all  the  rest  of  man- 
kind. The  Jews  are  allowed  to  sell  bad  nieat  to  strangers,  but 
mist  not  eat  it  themselves.  They  may  run  the  risk  of  poisoning 
strangers,  but  must  not  poison  themselves  by  it.  Beut.  14:  21, — 

•*  Ye  shall  not  cat  of  anything  that  dieth  of  itfself :  thou  shalt  give  it 
mnto  the  stranger  that  is  in  thy  gates,  that  he  may  eat  it ;  or  tlioii  mayest 
sell  it  unto  an  alien  :  for  tliou  art  an  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  (5 ml." 

Not  long  since,  some  Jews  in  Cincinnati  were  tried  and  found 
guilty  of  this  very  thing,  selling  bad  meat  to  "  the  heathen  " 
about  them.  What  a  pity  for  the  poor  Jews,  that  they  must  be 
tried  and  punished  by  a  Christian  government,  professing  to  re- 
ceive this  same  command  as  from  God,  for  their  strict  observance 
of  it !  When  will  the  age  of  consistency  come  ?  I  fear  —  I 
know,  not  until  men  cease  worshipping  old  fables. 

But  the  Bible  represents  God  as  subject  to  criminal  vices, 
murderous  passions,  deep  and  deadly  hatred.  In  his  treatment 
of  other  nations,  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  Jews,  his  partial- 
ity is  palpably  manifest.  In  Exodus  11,  he  is  represented  as 
commanding  the  Jews  to  spoil  the  Eg}'ptians,  by  borrowing  from 
them,  under  false  pretences;  and  in  chaper  13:  36,  we  are 
told  that  G'od  teaches  his  chosen  people  to  swindle ! 

•»  35.  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  aocorfing  to^  the  word  of  Moses  ; 
md  they  lK),rrow«l  of  the  Egyptians  jewels  of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold, 

and  raiment. 

8§.  And  the  Lord  giwc  the  people  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians, 


47 

80  that  they  lent  unto  them  such  things  as  they  required  j  and  they 
spoiled  the  Egyptians." 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  Egyptians  had  oppressed  the 
Jews,  and  robbed  them.  But  where  is  the  proof?  We  have  no 
proof  of  the  fact,  except  the  Bible  it&clf,  and  this  book  is  on  trial 
We  have  no  right  to  assume  the  truth  of  the  slory  until  it  shall 
be  proved.  We  have  no  testimony  but  that  of  the  Jews,  and 
such  testimony  is  not  admissible.  And,  besides,  suppose  it  were 
true  that  the  Egyptians  had  treated  the  Jews  unjustly  ;  has  God 
no  other  course,  no  other  alternative,  than  to  teach  swindling,  in 
order  to  secure  justice  to  the  covetous  Jews?  Is  God,  is  Infinite 
Wisdom  and  Power  driven  to  this,  that  he  must  teach  his  pets 
vice,  to  obtain  justice  ?  Had  not  Egypt  (according  to  the  story) 
just  felt  the  most  hideous  vengeance  from  his  Omnipotent  hand; 
and  yet,  at  last,  after  all  these  astounding,  miraculous  plagues, 
visited  by  God  directly  upon  her  land  and  its  inhabitants,  for  the 
especial  benefit  of  the  Jews,  we  have  this  silly,  self-destructive 
tale,  of  God  teaching  the  Jews  to  swindle  in  order  to  give  the 
Jews  their  due.  Can  two  wrongs  beget  one  right?  But  the 
history  of  these  ten  iilagucs,  visited  upon  Egypt  miraculously  by 
God,  —  by  a  fabulous  being  whom  the  Jews  called  Jehovah, —  is 
sufficient,  of  itself,  to  make  and  fix  the  charge  of  blasphemy  upon 
the  Bible.  Only  a  demon  God  can  gloat  over  such  bloody, 
nmrderous  work  as  in  detailed  in  the  history  of  these  plagues. 
^«ine  times  God  is  represented  as  hardening  Pharaoh's  heart  so 
that  he  would  not  let  the  people  go,  in  order  that  he  might  smite 
her  land  and  people,  and  all  things  in  and  about  them.  In 
chapter  9 :  15,  16,  we  have  revealed  both  the  horrible  deed  and 
the  vain-glorious  motive  which  moves  God  to  smite  Egypt. 
it,— 


**  14.  For  I  will  at  this  time  send  all  my  plagues  upon  thine  heart,  and 
upon  thy  servants,  and  upon  thy  people  ;  that  thpu  mayest  know  that 
there  is  none  like  me  in  all  the  earth. 

15.  For  now  I  will  stretch  fuith  my  hand,  that  I  may  smite  thee  and 
thy  people  with  pestilence  ;  and  thou  shalt  be  cut  off  from  the  earth. 

16.  And  in  very  deed  for  this  cause  have  1  rai;Mid  thee  up,  for  to  shew 


I 


48 


In  tliee  mj  power,  mid  that  mj  name  maj  be  declared  tlirougliont  all  tlie 

eartli." 

God  wants  to  be  known  tliroughout  all  the  earth,  so  here  he  is 
represented  as  smiting  with  awlul  aud  unsparing  destruction  the 
land  of  his  own  creatures,  aj,  his  creatures  themselves.  For 
what  would  suCh  a  God  be  known  but  for  power,  and  a  spirit 
which  a  devil  might  blush  to  own ;  an  ambition  which  would 
sweep  like  a  besom  of  death  o'er  the  world,  and  which  might 
make  hell  darker  with  its  frown?  Does  the  Infinite^  does  the 
holj  FcUker  of  Spirits,  the  Bdty  of  Lope^  and  Justice,  and 
Beautj,  wish  to  be  known  through  such  horrid  deeds  ?  If  so,  I 
do  not  wish  to  know  him.  I  prefer  to  perish  beneath  his  frown, 
with  humanity,  than  to  be  the  silly,  «eltish  pet  of  such  a  God. 
This  is  not  the  God  of  nature,  but  the  God  of  fable,  ignorance, 
seltishness,  covetousness  and  murderous,  lustful  passions.  This  is 
m  blasphemous  story,  a  libel  on  both  God  aud  his  works.  He 
who  loves  the  smile  of  such  a  Divinity,  must  be  first  lull  of  all 
that  is  selfish,  cofetous,  cruel,  murderous,  malignant. 

The  Bible  representa  God  as  loving  some  and  hating  others 
before  they  are  born.  In  liomans  9  :  11-13,  is  the  ibl lowing 
statement, — 


t* 


11.  (For  the  children  being  not  jet  bom,  neither  having  done  any 

good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God,  according  to  election,  might  stand, 

not  of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth  :) 

12.  It  was  said  unto  her,  Tlie  elder  shall  serve  the  younger. 

18.  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated. 

14.  What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God? 
God  forbid. 

16.  For  he  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have 
mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion.'* 

This  story  represents  God  as  partial,  as  loving  and  hating, 

without  any  actual  cause,  unborn  persons;  and  loving  Jacob -r- 

&  liar,  a  deceiver,  a  swindler,  and  a  polygamist  —  and  hating 
:Esau,  whom  Jacob  cheated  out  of  his  father's  blessing,  by  lying 
and  fraud,  at  his  mother's  instigation.  He  not  only  cheated 
Eaan  out  of  his  blessing,  but  lied  to  his  poor  old  blind  lather. 

But  of  this  matter  of  Jacol*  mid  Ksaii  hcrcafler.     Now  it  luiiy  1)0 


49 


said  that  the  word  translated  "  hate  "  here  only  means  a  less  de- 
gree of  love.  But  suppose  it  does  j  is  it  not  still  partiality  to 
love  one  less  than  another,  before  either  deserve  it?  But  it  is 
not  a  less  degree  of  love ;  it  is  a  deep,  deadly,  malignant  hutred, 
aa  the  follow iiig,  from  Malachi  1,  proves, — 

**  2.  I  have  loved  you,  saith  the  Lord.  Yet  ye  say,  Wherein  hast  thou 
loved  us  I  Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother  ?  saith  the  Lord  :  yet  I  loved 
Jacob. 

3.  And  I  hated  Esau,  and  laid  his  mountains  and  his  heritage  waste 
for  the  dragons  of  the  wilderness. 

4.  Whereas  Edom  saith,  We  are  impoverished,  but  we  will  return  and 
buIM  the  desolate  places  ;  thus  saitii  the  Lord  of  hosts,  They  shall  build, 
but  I  will  throw  down,  and  they  shall  call  them.  The  border  of  wicked- 
ness, and  The  people  against  whom  the  Lord  hath  indignation  forever." 

If  this  is  not  real,  deadly,  malignant  hatred,  then  there  is  none 
anywhere.     It  needs  no  further  comment. 

But  there  are  many  other  passages  which  represent  God  as 
unjust,  as  implacable,  revengeful,  full  of  wrath.  They  represent 
him  as  punishing  little  children  for  their  flithers'  sins,  and  even 
brutes  for  the  sins  of  their  owners ;  as  visiting  the  sins  of  idola- 
tors  upon  their  children  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation ;  as 
punishing  whole  nations,  thousands  of  men,  women  and  children, 
for  their  rulers'  sins.  Take  the  following  quotations  as  a  few 
specimens.  Joshua  7  :  10-26,  represents  God  as  commanding 
Achan  and  all  his  sons  and  daughters,  and  oxen  and  sheep  and 
asses,  aud  all  tluit  he  had,  to  be  stoned  with  stones  and  burnt 
with  fire,  because  Achan  stole  the  wudge  of  gold.  In  2  Samuel 
21,  God  is  represented  as  sanctioning  the  hanging  of  Saul's 
seven  sons  and  grandsons  for  their  father's  sin,  because  Saul,  a 
long  time  before,  had  done  wrong  to  the  Gibeonitos.  After  this 
bloody  deed,  we  are  told,  God  was  entreated  for  the  land.  God 
is  said  to  have  sent  a  pestilence  upon  the  land  because  of  Saul's 
wrong,  committed  many  years  before,  and  as  stopping  it  after  this 
heartless  butchery  of  Saul's  innocent  sons  and  grandsons.  In 
Deuteronomy  21 :  18-22,  God  is  represented  as  commariding 
parents  to  stone  t/ieir  stubborn  and  rebellious  children  unto 


I  III ! 

"  I 


m 


ieatk  In  2  Kings  10,  God  is  represented  as  decIariDg  that 
Jehu  did  well  when  he  slew  Ahab*s  seventy  sons  —  cut  oif  their 
heads — because  tbeir  father  sinned.  "  The  whole  house  of  Ahab 
shall  perish,"  saith  the  Lord,  by  the  prophet  (2  Kings  9:8); 
and  so  all  his  children  suffer  for  his  sin.  In  1  Samuel  15 :  2,  3, 
we  find  this,  — 

••  2.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  I  remember  that  which  Amalek  did 
to  Israel,  how  he  laid  wait  for  Mm  in  the  waj  when  lie  came  up  from 


8..  Now  go  and  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly  destroy  all  that  they  have, 
'and  spaitj  them  not ;,  but  slay  both  man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling, 

OK  and  sheep,  camel  and  nss." 

This  command  came  to  Saul.     Here  God  is  said  to  demand 

the  total  destruction  of  the  Amalekites  for  sins  committed  more 
than  four  hundred  years  before  by  their  forefathers.  luuocenfc 
men,  women,  children,  and  dumb  brutes,  are  the  sacrifice  which 
God  is  said  to  demand  for  some  folly  or  wrong  committed  long 

before.  Saul  went,  it  is  said,  and  slew  all  the  Amalekites.  But 
he  spared  Agag,the  king,  and  some  of  the  shcej)  and  oxen.  But, 
80  enraged  is  God  at  this,  that  he  repents  having  made  Saul  king. 
Then  Samuel  takes  Amv  and  hews  him  in  pieces  before  the  Lord 
to  prevent  being  consumed  by  divine  wrath.  These  are  horrid, 
awful,  blasphemous  stories,  Ijut  not  the  worst. 

Take  another  blaspliemuus  story  from  2  Samuel  24  :  1, — ■ 

•*  1.  And  again  tlic  anger  of  the  Loitl  was  kindled  against  Israel,  and 
he  moved  Bavid  against  tlieni  to  say,  Go,  niimhor  Israel  and  Jmlah. 

10.  And  David's  heart  smote  hiui  iitlor  tU.it  !i  had  iiunibered  the  peo- 
ple. And  David  said  unto  the  Lord,  I  liave  sinned  jrreatly  in  that  I  have 
■4mm  ;  and  now,  I  beseech  thee,  0  Lord,  take  away  the  iniijuity  of  thy 
wrvant ;  for  I  have  done  veiy  iboliahlj." 

If  God  moved  David  to  number  the  people,  how  could  it  be 
Bin  or  folly?  Why  should  David  pray  to  be  forgiven  for  doing 
just  what  God  himself  moved  him  to  do  ?  Was  it  a  sin  and 
folly  for  David  to  do  what  the  divine  impulse  made  him  do? 
Perhaps  David  did  not  know  that  God  moved  him.  But  whethef 


51 


he  did,  or  not,  it  does  not  make  any  difference  in  the  blasphemy 
of  the  account. 

"11.  For  when  David  was  up  in  the  morning,  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came  unto  the  prophet  Gad,  David's  seer,  saying, 

12.  Go  and  say  unto  David,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  I  offer  thee  three 
things  ;  choose  thee  one  of  thciii,  that  I  may  do  it  unto  thee. 

lo.  So  Ga<l  came  unto  David,  and  told  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Shall 
seven  years  of  famine  come  unto  thee  in  thy  land?  or  wilt  tliou  tice  three 
months  before  thine  enemies,  ivhile  they  pursue  thee?  or  that  there  be 
three  days'  pestilence  in  tliy  land?  Now  advise,  and  see  what  answer  I 
shall  return  to  him  that  sent  me. 

14.  And  David  said  unto  Gad,  I  am  in  a  great  strait;  let  us  fall  now 
into  tlie  liand  of  the  Lord  ;  fur  his  mercies  are  great ;  and  lot  me  not  fall 
into  the  hand  of  nmn. 

15.  So  the  Lord  sent  a  postilcncc  upon  Israel  from  the  morning  even  to 
the  time  appoints  1  ;  and  there  died  of  the  people  from  Dan  even  to  Beer- 
eheba  seventy  thous;uul  men. 

11).  And  when  the  angel  sti-etched  forth  his  hand  upon  Jerusalem  to 
destroy  it,  the  Lord  repeiitod  him  of  the  evil,  and  said  to  tlie  angel  that 
dt«troycd  tlie  peopk',  It  is  enough,  stay  now  thine  hand.  And  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  was  by  the  tlireshing-plaee  of  Araunah  the  Jebusite. 

17.  An<l  David  spake  unto  the  Lord  wlien  he  saw  the  angel  that  smote 
the  people,  and  said,  Lo,  I  have  sinned,  and  I  have  done  wicketlly ;  but 
these  sheep,  what  have  they  done?  Let  thine  hand,  I  pray  thee,  be 
against  me,  and  against  my  father's  house." 

A  more  blasphemous  story  was  never  forged.  Seventy  thou- 
sand innocents  slain,  by  God,  for  an  act,  not  sin,  of  David,  which 
God  himself  moved  him  to  do!  If  David  sinned  in  numbering 
the  people,  why  did  not  God  kill  him,  if  he  must  kill  somebody? 
Why  murder  the  innocent  ?  If  there  is  any  sin  in  the  case,  it  is 
God's,  not  David's  or  the  people's.  But  David's  slaughtered 
people  fell  victims  to  the  murderous  passions  of  the  Great  Om- 
nipotent.    No  blasphemy  can  transcend  that  of  this  chapter. 

As  another  illustration  of  the  "false"  and  blasphemous  rep- 
resentations which  the  Bible  gives  of  God,  see  Numb.  31 :  1, 2, — 

"1.  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying, 

2.  Avenge  the  children  of  Israel  of  the  Midianites ;  afterward  shalt 
thou  be  gathered  unto  thy  people." 


Moaes  arms  bis  people  for  tlie  work.  They  go  forth  and  slay 
and  burn.     But  they  did  not  kill  all  the  women  and  children. 

**  9.  And  the  children  of  Israel  took  all  the  women  of  Midian  captive, 
and  tlieli-  little  ones,  and  took  the  spoil  of  all  their  cattle,  and  all  their 

iocks,  and  all  their  goods. 

10.  xV.nd  they  burnt  all  theii*  cities  wlieiuiu  they  dwelt,  and  all  their 
goodly  castles,  with  fire. 

11.  And  they  took  all  the  spoil,  and  all  the  prey,  both  of  men  and  of 
beaste. 

12.  And  they  brought  the  captives,  and  tlie  prey,  and  the  spoil,  nnto 
Moses  and  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  unto  the  cony:re«!;.-itioii  of  tlic  children 
of  Israel,  unto  the  camp  of  the  plains  of  Moab,  which  are  by  Jordan,  near 


13.  And  Moses  and  Elcjizcr  the  priest,  nnd  all  tlic  princes  of  the  con- 
gregation, went  fui'tli  to  meet  them  without  tlie  camp. 

14.  And  Moses  w:is  wroth  with  the  otficers  of  tlie  host,  witli  the  cap- 
tains over  thousands,  and  captains  over  hundreds,  which  came  from  the 
battle. 

15.  And  Bloses  said  nnto  them,  Have  ye  saved  all  the  women  alive? 

16.  Behold,  these  caused  the  children  of  Israel,  through  the  counsel  of 
Biilaam,  to  commit  trespass  ag-uinst  the  Lord  in  the  matter  of  Peer,  and 
there  was  a  plague  amon^i;  the  congregation  of  the  Lor<l. 

17.  Now,  therefore,  kill  every  male  among  the  little  ones,^  and  kill 
every  woman  tliat  hath  known  man  by  lying  with  him.*' 

Murder  and  gross  prostitution,  all  under  the  immediate  direc- 
tion and  control  of  the  Infinite  God !  Who  can  believe  this? 
It  is  a  monstrous  lie,  a  scandalous  and  unequalled  blasphemy 
against  the  God  of  Nature,  and  the  Beautiful  Father  of  Spirits. 
Becrepit  old  men  and  women,  the  sucking  infant  on  its  mother's 
bloody  breast,  and  little  male  children,  all  weltering  in  their  gore, 
on  their  own  soil,  amid  the  altars  of  Homey  and  the  graves  of 
their  fathers  !  And  all  charged  upon  God !  None  but  a  demon, 
of  hate  and  rancorous  malice  full,  which  the  fabled  apostate 
damned  alone  could  feel,  could  thus  gloat  in  death  and  blood. 
This  story  contains  and  ascribes  to  God  a  spirit  which  would  wrap 
the  fabled  hell  itself  in  Egyptian  gloom. 

There  are  many  more  such  awful  stories  in  this  old  book. 
Joshua,  tenth  and  eleventh   chapters,  is  a  horrid  retail  and 


53 


wholesale  of  such  doings.     Reader,  examine  them  for  your- 
self. 

The  Bible  represents  God  as  a  Great  Moloch.  It  represents 
him  as  demanding  human  sacrifices,  and  as  receiving  them.  (See 
Genesis  22.)  It  is  true  that  in  this  case  of  Abraham  he  did 
not  accept  the  offering ;  but  in  many  others  he  did  accept  them. 
(See  2  Samuel  21:  1-14;  Judges  11:  29-40;  Joshua  7:  24, 
25,  and  2  Kings  10.)  We  are  told,  in  the  New  Testament,  that 
God  accepts  Jesus  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  Paul, 
in  the  twenty-fifth  verse  of  the  fourth  chapter  of  Romans,  says, — 

*'  Jesus  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  raised  again  for  our  justifi- 
cation." 

In  1  Corinthians  15  :  1-3, — 

"1.  Moreover,  brethren,  I  declare  unto  you  the  gospel  which  I  preached 
unto  you,  which  also  ye  have  received,  and  wherein  ye  stand  ; 

2.  By  which  also  ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory  what  I  preached 
unto  you,  unless  ye  have  believed  in  vain. 

3.  For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all,  that  which  I  also  received,  how 
that  Christ  died  fur  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures."** 

Again,  Paul  declares,  in  Galatians  3 :  13,  — 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  heinff  made  a  curse 
Ibr  us  ;  for  it  is  written,  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree,*'' 

Again,  Hebrews  9  :  15, — 

"  And  for  this  cause  he  is  the  mediator  of  the  new  testament,  that  by 
means  of  death,  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgressions  that  were  under 
the  first  testament,  they  which  are  called  might  receive  the  promise  of 

eternal  inlieritance. ' ' 

And  again,  while  speaking  of  sacrifices,  he  exalts  the  sacrifice 
of  Jesus  Clirist  over  all  other  sacrifices.  In  the  tenth  chapter 
of  Hebrews  is  this  passage.  The  chapter  is  headed  "  Chrisfs 
perfect  sacrifice.'^ 


c« 


iO.  By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  thi*ough  the  offering  of  the 
IxKiy  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all." 

Again,  in  Romans  3 :  25, — 
6* 


54 


55 


•■•Wliom  God  liatli  set  fortli  to 'be  a  propitiation,  tliroiigh  fliitli  in  his 

Wowl,  to  declare  Iiis  rightcmsness  for  tlie  remiaiioE  oi'Bins  that  are  past, 

tli,rougl:i  the  ibrbeanincc  ol"  liod,." 

And  also  io,  1  John  2 :  2 , — 

"And  lie  is  the  propitifttioii  for  our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but 

Ibr  the  sins,  of  the  whole  world." 

It  IB  plaielj  declared  that  "Jesus  Christ  is  the  atoning  sficri- 
ice  **  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  According  to  Webster,  '*  pro- 
pitiation** itt  both  these  passages  means  "atoning  Siicrifice," 
Literally  it  nieaus  appeasing  the  wrath  of  an  offended  person ; 
mod  in  these  passages  it  means  to  appease  the  wrath  of  liud  l>y 
the  atoning  sacriice  of  Jesos.  Atone  or  atonement,  according  to 
Webster,  in  tbeologj  "is  the  expiation  of  sin  n,iadc  hy  the  obe- 
dience and  personal  sufferings  of  Christ.'*  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  doctrine  of  **  ¥icariou8  atonement,"  Jesus  a  suffering,  djing 
sacrifice  to  God,  to  appease  the  divine  wrath.  Hence  all  this 
pulpit  talk  about  the  "  precious  blood  of  Christ;  '*  **  being  wasfied 
in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,"  Ao.,  &c.  Now,  what  docs  it  all 
mean?  Why,  simply  this:  God  is  angry  at  mankind;  he  id 
.going  to  kill  somebody;  Jesus  offers  himself  as  an  ■^' atoning 
Bacrifice"  for  the  sins  of  the  wMe  world.  God  accepts  the 
offering,  Jesus  suffers  and  dies  upon  the  cross  in  man's  stead,  and 
Ci'od,  seeing  his  agony  and  bloody  death,  is  satisfied. 

Mere,  then,  is  presented  to  us  one  of  the  darkest,  mo»t  Ijloody, 
and  horrid  spectacles  the  eye  of  the  world  ever  looked  upon. 
The  « ju«t  s„ffevi„g  for  the  unjust ;"  the  innocent  Jeans  d,i.,g  ,or 
the  sins  of  a  guilty  world  !  And  we  are  told,  in  many  other  pa-- 
•■;ges,  and  in  nearly  every  church  in  Christendom,  that  God  gave 
'■'■his  only  begotten  Son**  to  suffer  and  die  upon  the  cross  for  the 
original  and  actual  sins  of  the  world,  God  accepts  the  blood  of 
the  murdered,  gentle  Jesus,  —  murdered  by  the  hands  or  at  the 
beekof  his  chosen  Priests,  the  Jewish  High  Priests, — as  an  expia- 
tion of  the  sins  of  the  world,  as  an  atonement  for  all  mankind's 
misdoings !  Can  anything  be  more  bIasj,»hemous,  moi-e  dcrogu- 
lory  of  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  Deity?    Is  God  a  blood- 


thirsty  monster,  that  he  can  be  appeased  only  by  tlic  .shedding  of 
the  blood  of  his  own  innocent  Sun?     I  know  well  what  are  the 
arguments  of  church  and  clergy  on  this  point.     They  tell  us  tliut 
all  mankind   was   groaning  beneath   the  eurfco  of  tiod's  bruken 
law;   that  in  consc(iucnce  of  '' Adaai s  fall ,  we  s'uuwd  all;" 
that  death  passed  upon  all  men  from  Eve's  eating  an  apple,  and 
^Adam's  helping  her,  in  violation  of  Go.i'.s  eomuiand;  and  tli;it, 
because  God,  being  ju^t,  and  hiu'ing  told  our  first  parents  that 
"in   the  day   thou  eatest   thereof  thou  t^halt  surely  die;"  and 
they  having  eaten,  the  law  having  been  broken,  somebody  must 
jiay  the  penalty  ;  and  so  at  last  Jesus  offers  himself  to  sn  ve  man 
from   the  result  of  his  sin,  if  sin  it  be,  to  eat  a  goodly-looking 
apple.     All  these  assumptions  are  purely  gratuitous.     Suppose 
nnin  did  disobey  God's  law,  did  eat  the  apple,  what  then  ?     Is 
God  so  blind,  so  obtuse  in  his  moral  qualities,  that  he  accepts 
•Jesus*  mangled  body,  torn  by  his  own  priesthood's  hate,  as  an 
expiation  ?     That  doctrine  njay  display  nobleness  on  the  part  of 
Jesus,  but  what  must  we  think  of  a  God  whose  wrath  is  assuaged 
in  the  blood  of  the  innocent?     It  will  not  do  to  say,  "it  is  vol- 
untary on  the  part  of  Jesus."     It  does  not  change  the  murder- 
ous nature  of  the  sacrifice,  or  of  a  God  who  could  accept  it.     It 
makes  it  still   more  awful,   and  stamps   tlie  brand  of  murder 
deeper  on  the  divine  brow.      And,  besides,  it  makes  the  God, 
who  uttered  the  passage,  "  In  the  day  that  thmi  (to  Adam)  cat- 
est  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  a  liar.     If  Jesus  dies  for  man, 
and  in  his  stead,  and  such  death  is  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  and  man,  in  consequence,  does  not  suffer  the 
penalty,  tlien  was  God  — this  Bible  God  — a  great  liar;  for,  he 
declared  that  man  should  die,  not  Jesus.     So,  if  Jesus  suffers 
for  man,  he  makes  "  God's  "  law  of  no  effect.     The  passage,  "  In 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  is  a  great  lie 
anyhow.     The  story  tells  us  that  Adam  did  eat,  and  then  goes 
right  on  propagating  his  species  and  peopling  the  world.     Can  a 
dead  man  and  woman  propagate  their  kind  ?    Ah  !  but,  says  the 
Bible  apologist,  this  passage  means,  "  Dying  thou  shalt  begi/i  to 
die,**     If  it  means  so,  why  don't  it  say  so  ?    But  how  does  a 


pii«t  know  tliat  it  meaiiB  so  1  It  is  very  convenient  to  be  able 
to  make  Bible  sometimes.  But,  says  another,  it  was  only  phys- 
ical death  spoken  of  here,  and  probably  man  would  always  have 
remained  on  the  earth,  in  the  form,  if  he  had  not  sinned.  I  ask 
how  do  we  know?  If  it  was,  then  all  for  whom  Christ  made  an 
atonement,  would  live  forever  in  their  material  bodies.  Not 
even  a  single  Christian  does  so  remain  in  his  body.  This  idea 
must  be  abandoned,  then.  ^ 

But  another  says,  "  It  was  only  spiritual  death  —  the  death 
of  the  soul  —  spoken  of  here."  Well,  suppose  it  was?  God 
is  made  a  liar  by  this  supposition,  too.  If  Adam  and  Eve's 
souls  had  died  in  the  day  they  eat,  how  long  would  their  bodies 
have  lived  and  propagated  their  kind  ?  When  a  man's  soul  is 
dead,  or  has  even  gone  out  of  the  body,  though  it  still  live  in 
another  sphere,  his  body  dies  and  is  heaped  with  other  dust. 

Thus  it  is,  as  Parker  well  says,  •'  Lies  in  theology,  like  bits 
of  glass  in  a  kaleidoscope,  are  multiplied  again  and  again  in 
fantastic  combinations."  The  last  resort  of  the  theologian  to 
escape  from  this  great  dilemma  is  the  third  and  last  supposition, 
that  the  death  here  spoken  of  is  eternal  torment  in  hell,  or  the 
annihilation  of  the  wicked.  Two  classes  of  Bible  apologists 
maintain,  each,  one  of  these  views.  They  both  give  the  lie  to 
the  passage,  "  In  the  iay,"  &c.  The  first  class  put  off  the  pun- 
ishment or  ** death"  to  some  unknown  "judgment-day,"  and  the 
second  do  so  likewise ;  thus  both  contradicting  the  entire  passage. 

On  this  subject,  the  vicarious  atonement,  I  shall  have  more  to 
Ba,  by  and  by. 

The  Bible  represents  God  as  deceiving  people.  It  represents 
him  as  sending  lying  spirits  on  purpose  to  deceive  them,  and 
sometimes  for  the  very  worst  of  purposes,  in  order  that  tliey 
might  be  damned.  2  Chronicles  17  :  18-22,  represents  God  as 
sending  lying  spirits  to  deceive  Ahab,  in  order  to  get  him  killed. 
Hear  it,  — 


•t  • 


'  20.  Tlieii  there  came  oat  a  spirit,  and  stood  before  the  Lord,  and  said, 
I  win  eEtice  Mm,     And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Wherewith? 
21.  And  he  said,  I  will  go  oat.  and  be  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of 


57 


all  his  prophets.     And  the  Lord  said,  Thou  shalt  entice  him,  and  thou 
shalt  also  prevail  ;  go  out  and  do  even  so." 

In  Deuteronomy,  God  is  represented  as  employing  false  proph- 
ets to  try  the  Jews,  to  see  whether  they  feared  him  or  not.  Take 
another  passage  from  Judges  0  :  23.  See,  also,  1  Samuel  19 : 
i),  and  Ezekiel  14  :  9.  lu  this  last  ((uolatioii,  or  rather  refer- 
ence, God  is  represented  us  saving,  "  It'  a  prophet  be  deceived, 
I,  the  Lord,  have  deceived  that  prophet."  Take  another,  from 
2  Thcasalonians  2  :  9-12,— 

*'  8.  And  thwi'sliall  tliat  Wicke.l  l>c  revcilcd,  whom  the  Lord  shall  con- 
sume with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness 
of  his  coming. 

9.  Even  him,  whose  ccminji;  is  after  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all 
power,  and  sign!5,  and  lying  wonders. 

10.  And  with  all  deoeivablcncss  of  unrighteousness  in  them  that  per- 
ish ;  because  they  received  not  tlic  k,\e  of  the  truth,  that  they  might  be 
saved. 

11.  And  for  this  cause  God  sh:dl  send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they 
should  believe  a  lie. 

12.  That  they  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but  had 
pleasure  in  unrigliteousness.  " 

The  only  reason  given  in  this  passage  for  "  sending  strong  de- 
lusion "  to  believe  a  lie,  that  they  might  be  damned,  is  that  they 
received  not  the  love  of  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrigh- 
'teousness.  But  does  God  find  any  necessity,  in  this  fact,  to 
engage  actually  and  actively  in  deceiving  them,  to  get  them 
damned  ?  According  to  the  orthodox  notion,  they  were  sure  to 
be  damned  anyhow ;  and  are  we  to  believe  that  God  is  so  malig- 
nant that  he  delights  in  deceiving,  and  thus  blinding  them  to 
their  destruction,  in  order  to  hasten  and  deepen  their  tormnnt  ? 

"  Sma'  pleasure  it  can  gie  e'en  to  a  de'il 
To  scare  poor  wretches  and  hear  us  squeal," — 

much  less  to  a  God,  the  Father  of  men.  Will  it  be  said,  "  God 
only  leaves  them  to  their  own  hardness  of  heart,  and  blindness 
of  mind"?    This  supposition  is  at  variance  with  the  positive 


05 


ioclaralion  of  the  paesage  before  us ;  for  it  represents  God  as 
actually  and  actively  engaged  in  sending  ''strong  ddusiom^'^ 
working  great  wonders,  "  that  they  might  be  damned."  Theolo- 
gians often  tell  us  that  God  may  be  said  to  do  what  he  allows  to 
be  done.  If  so,  then  God  may  be  said  to  do  the  dirty  work  of 
the  devil ;  but  would  it  not  be  saying  a  great  lie  ?  If  God  does 
whatever  he  allows  or  permits  to  be  done,  then  is  he  the  author 
of  all  the  wrong  in  the  world.  This  is  outrai,'eous  blasphemy. 
But,  says  one,  '^God  is  supreme,  and  can  do  as  he  pleases  with 
his  own  creatures."  I  ask,  can  God  please  to  he  a  ^aeat  tyraot, 
munlcrer,  and  Bloloch?  Can  iXvQ  Divine  be  pleaded  with  ston- 
ing and  burning  innocent  children  for  their  lathers'  sins?  Can 
He  ha  pkmed  to  butcher  whole  nations,  —  thousands  of  men, 
women,  and  children,  —  for  sins  committed  by  their  forefathers, 
or  their  rulers,  hundreds  of  years  before?  Can  he  be  pleased 
with  (he  awful  murders  ascribed  to  him  ia  the  Bible,  which  I 
have  (|uotcd  ?     If  such  is  God,  what  and  who  is  the  Devil  ? 

There  is  no  blasphemy  so  imi>udcnt  as  that  of  those  who  as- 
cribe to  God  all  tliesc  atrocious  crimes.     Let  no  reader  call  me 
henier  against  God.     I  only  blaspheme  a  l(X}k  which 


gives  such  bloody  descriptions  of  God,  and  false  as  bloody. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE   BIBLE   GIVES   CONTRADICTORY   REPRESENTATIONS    OF   GOD. 

Some  passages  speak  of  him  as  one  God;  others  speak  of  him 
as  several.  Some  i)assages  speak  of  him  as  having  a  body,  like 
men ;  others  tell  us  that  he  is  a  spirit,  without  "  body  or  parts." 
Some  passiiges  represent  him  as  being  seen  of  men,  often,  and  in 
various  places  at  difi'ei  ent  times ;  that  Moses,  Jacob,  Isaiah,  and 
others,  saw  him  face  to  face,  and  talked  with  him;  while  others 
tell  us  he  is  invisible — that  "  no  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time."  The  New  Testament  tells  us  that  no  man  ever  saw  God 
tl  any  time,  notwithstaQding  all  the  statements  in  the  Old  Tes- 


59 

lament  of  men  seeiiig  him,  talking  with  him,  hearing  him  speak, 
and  even  wrestling  with  him.  Compare  Exod.  20 :  1-3,  and  1 
John  1  :  l-l,  with  Gen.  1  :  2G  and  11:7.  God's  invisible  vis- 
ibility IbuiKl  by  comparing  Gen.  32:  30  with  John  1 :  18;  Ex. 
33  :  20  with  1  Tim.  6  :  15  ;  Isa.  6  :  1  with  Ex.  33  :  23 ;  Numb. 
14 :  14,  Ex.  24 :  10  and  33  :  10,  with  John  5  :  37. 

Some  passages  speak  of  God  as  omnipotent,  almighty,  able  to 
do  anything,  to  accomplish  whatever  he  sets  about ;  that  he  never 
faints  or  gets  tired ;  while  others  speak  of  him  as  getting  stuck 
fast,  unable  to  carry  out  his  wishes,  in  consequence  of  difficulties 
which  finite  men  throw  in  his  way,  as  getting  tired  with  the  six 
days'  work  of  creation,  as  taking  rest  and  being  refreshed.  Com- 
pare Mark  10 :  27  with  Ex.  4 :  24 ;  Matt.  19 :  26  with  Gen. 
32 :  28 ;  Job  42 :  2  with  Judges  1 :  19 ;  Isaiah  40 :  28  with 
Gen.  2:2;  John  1 :  14  with  Ex.  31:17;  John  10 :  3  with  Mark 
6 :  5-7. 

Some  passages  represent  God  as  omnipresent, — everywhere, 
— even  in  hell;  while  others  teach  us  that  he  is  finite,  limited, 
local  in  presence,  as  living  overhead  somewhere,  and  so  far  off 
as  to  have  to  come  down  to  earth  to  find  out  what  is  going  ou 
among  men.  Compare  Jer.  23 :  24  with  Gen.  11 :  5-7 ;  Ps. 
139 :  7-10  with  Judges  18 :  20,  21. 

Some  passages  teach  that  God  is  omniscient,  all-knowing,  as 
the  all-searching  eye ;  while  others  represent  him  as  not  know- 
ing what  is  in  men's  hearts  until  he  finds  out  by  experiment  upon 
them.  Compare  Acts  1 :  24  with  Deut.  8  :  2;  Ps.  139  :  2-12 
with  Deut.  13 :  3,  and  Gen.  22 :  12. 

Some  passages  represent  God  as  unchangeable,  immutable, 
•  "with  whom  there  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning;'* 
another  set  of  passages  teach  us  that  he  is  changeable,  fickle- 
minded,  capricious;  that  he  often  changes  in  consequence  of 
some  unlooked-for  human  contingency  getting  in  his  way.  Some 
passages  say  God  never  repents ;  others  say  he  gets  weary  with 
repenting.  And  many  others  represent  him  as  often  repenting, 
as  often  as  he  finds  himself  mistaken  in  a  former  course  of  inten- 
tion or  action.    Compare  Numb.  23  :  19  with  Gen.  6  :  6 ;  1  Sam. 


in 


60 


15 :  11  witli  15 :  29 ;  Job  23 :  18  with  Judges  2 :  18 ;  Ps.  33 : 
11  with  1  Chron.  21 :  15 ;  Isa.  40 :  28  with  Jer.  15:6,  and  Isa. 
14 :  24  with  Jer.  18 :  8-10 ;  Hos.  13  :  14  with  Jer.  26  :  19 ; 
James  1 :  17  with  Jer.  42 :  10 ;  Numb.  23 :  19  with  1  Sam.  2 : 
30 ;  Mai.  3 :  6  with  Jonah  3  :  11. 

Some  pasBtges  tell  us  God  is  a  God  of  truth ;  that  he  cannot 
lie ;  that  he  punishes  the  liar,  and  commands  false  prophets  to  be 
stoned  ;  while  other  passages  represent  him  as  falsifying  his  own 
word,  as  lying  by  proxy  through  false  prophets,  and  sending  lying 
spirits  among  men  on  purpose  to  deceive  them ;  as  sending  men 
•'  strong  delusions,"  working  false  miracles,  to  make  them  believe 
a  lie,  thai  they  might  be  damned.  Compare  Deut,  32 :  4  with 
2  Chron.  18 :  22 ;  1  Kings  8 :  56  with  Numb.  14 :  34 ;  Ex.  20 : 
16  with  Eze.  14 :  9 ;  Numb,  23 :  13  with  Rom.  3 :  7,  and  Titus 
1 :  17  with  1  Kings  22  :  20-23 ;  Heb.  6 :  18  with  2  The.ss.  2  : 
9-11 ;  1  Sam.  15 :  20  with  Dcut.  13  :  1-3. 

Some  passages  tell  us  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons ;  ftiat  he 
is  impartial  in  his  dealings ;  while  others  tell  us  he  loves  one  and 
hates  another  before  either  is  bora ;  that  he  makes  some  lor  honor 
and  others  for  dishonor.  Compare  Eom.  2 :  11  with  Gen.  25 : 
23;  Job  34 :  19  with  Mai.  1 :  1-4 ;  Aets  10 :  34  with  Horn.  9  : 
20-13;  and  2  Chron.  19:  7  with  the  whole  history  of  God's 
represented  doings  with  the  Jews. 

One  set  of  passages  tell  us  God  is  just  and  righteous ;  that  ho 
will  not  condemn  the  righteous  nor  justify  the  wicked  ;  that  the 
soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die;  that  the  son  shall  not  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  father;  that  all  his  ways  are  just,  equal,  aiitl 
right ;  that  man  shall  have  no  ground  to  say  the  fathers  have 
eaten  sour  grapes  and  the  children's  teeth  arc  set  on  edge ;  that 
a  man  shall  be  judged  by  and  according  to  his  works ;  that 
whatsoever  a  man  soweth  that  shall  he  also  reap;  while  another 
set  represent  God  as  unjust,  visiting  Adam's  guilt  upon  the  whole 
world,  and  the  sins  of  fathers  upon  their  children  to  the  third  and 
fourth  generation  ;  as  killing  little  children  because  their  fathers 
stole ;  as  destroying  whole  nations  for  thoir  rulers'  sins ;  as  butch- 
ering whole  families  for  their  fathers' sins  —  dead  long  before; 


61 

I 

as  destroying  seventy  thousand  men,  women,  and  children,  for  an 
act  of  one  of  his  favorites — David,  which  he  himself  moved 
David  to  do ;  and  at  last  as  accepting  the  murder  of  his  own  son 
for  the  sins  of  a  guilty  world.     Compare  Jer.  81 :  29-30  with 
Gen.  3  :  14-19;  Ezek.  18  :  1-20  with  Gen.  9  :  22;  Deut.  32  : 
4  with  2  Sam.  24 :  15-17  ;  Job  34 :  10  with  Num.  31 :  2 ;  Ps. 
92  :  15  with  2  Sam.  15 :  1-8 ;  Gen.  18 :  25  with  Ezek.  20 :  25 ; 
Prov.  17  :  15  with  1  Peter  3  :  18  ;  Uom.  8  :  32 ;  Isa.  53  :  5-11. 
Some  passages  tell  us  God  is  love;  that  he  is  full  of  compas- 
sion, abundant  in  goodness,  forgiving  iniquity;  that  his  tender 
mercies  are  Qver  all  the  work  of  his  hands;  that  he  would  not 
that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  inherit  eternal  life ; 
while  others  represent  him  as  exceedingly  furious,  and  jealous; 
that  his  anger  shall  burn  to  the  lowest  hell ;  as  reserving  unbe- 
lievers for  the  day  of  wrath ;  as  commanding  the  Jews  to  murder 
surrounding  nations,  to  prostitute  their  virgins,  to  swindle  them 
out  of  their  jewels,  to  lay  waste  their  habitations,  to  spread  death 
and  bloody  desolation  in  their  path,  and  threatening  to  torment 
others  in    hell-flames  forever,  turning  whole  nations   into  hell, 
grinding  the  wicked  as  ashes  beneath  the  soles  of  the  feet  of  the 
righteous.     Take  the  following  as  a  few  specimens :     Compare 
1  John  4 :  16  with  Deut.  23  :  6 ;  Ps.  106 :  1  with  Ezra  9  :  12 ; 
Ps.  107  :  7  with  Ex.  20  :  5  ;  Ps.  109  :  68  with  Deut.  4 :  24 ; 
Ps.  145  :  9  with  Deut.  9 :  3,  Prov.  16 :  4. 

Some  passages  represent  God  as  commanding  the  sacrifice  of 
animals,  and  speak  of  the  effluvia  of  burning  flesh  as  a  sweet  savor 
to  God ;  while  others  say  he  has  no  pleasure  in  them,  that  he  did 
not  institute  them,  that  all  he  requires  is  to  do  justly,  love  mercy, 
and  walk  humbly  with  God.  Compare  Gen.  8  :  21  with  Jer.  7 : 
21-23 ;  Lev.  1 :  9  with  Micah  6:6-8;  Ex.  12  :  1  with  Ps.  51 : 
16 ;  Lev.  4  :  5-6  with  Ps.  50  :  9-13,  and  Isa.  06  :  3. 

6 


62 


lit 


IB  1 1 


CHAPTER    VII. 

IT  CONTBADICTS  ASTttONOMY,  QEOLOOY  AND  ITSELF,  IN  ITS  ACCOUNT 

Of  CREATION. 

I  HiiD  not  stop  to  prove  that  Astronomy  displays  the  Art 
and  Science  of  God,  or  that  Geology  is  God's  word  in  granite 
rocks.  If  God  ever  did  anything,  he  put  those  starry  worlds  in 
motion.  They  move  anyhow,  and  display  a  Divine  art.  If 
Genesis  contradicts  Astronomy,  Genesis  must  be  false.  I  wiil  not 
waste  words  on  this  point.  If  Moses  contradicts  Nature,  Moses 
tells  errors,  that  is  all ;  for  Nature  is  the  art  of  all  the  Divinity 
iiian  can  ever  know.  When  man  gets  out  of,  or  above  Nature 
he  gets  out  of,  and  above  God,  and  into  nothing. 

The  Bible  gives  us  to  understand  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
and  all  that  in  them  is,  were  created  in  six  days,  about  six 
Iho^usand  years  ago.     Ex,  20  :  11, — 

•*  II.  For  io  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea  and  all 
that  in  them  is,  and  rented  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed 
the  acventk  day,  and  hallowed  it.  " 

Some  theological  geologists  have  tried  to  make  the  word  "  day  " 
here  an  India-rubber  thing,  capable  of  indefinite  stretching  so  as 
to  cover  a  long  period  of  time,  but  with  very  poor  success.  It  is 
perfectly  evident  that  the  Jews  understood  the  word  "  day  "  as 
embracing  a  common  day  of  twenty-four  hours.  From  the  20th 
of  Exodus  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  it  is  to  be  understood  liter- 
ally,    God  commands  the  Jews  to,  — 

**  8.  Remember  the  Sabbatli-day  to  keep  it  holy. 

9.  Six  days  shalt  thou  lalior,  and  do  all  thy  work  ; 

10.  But  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God  ;  in  it  thou 
ihalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  thy  man- 
servant nor  thy  maid-servant,  nor  thy  cattle,  nor  the  stranger  that  is 
within,  thy  gates.*' 

Why?  because,— 

•*  11.  For  ill  six  days  the  Loitl  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea  and  all 
that  in  them  ie,  and  restetl  on  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed 

te  Sabbath-day,  and  hallowed  it." 


63 

Here  the  Jews  are  commanded  to  work  six  days,  and  rest  on 
the  seventh,  because  God  worked  six  days,  and  rested  on  the  sev- 
enth. Now,  if  the  word  "  day  "  is  an  indefinite  word,  embracing 
a  long  and  indefinite  period  of  time,  how  could  the  Jews  know 
when  to  work  or  when  to  rest,  and  how  do  we  know  when  to  keep 
the  Sabbath  at  all  ?  If  it  means,  according  to  Dr.  John  Pye 
Smith,  many  thousands  or  even  millions  of  years,  the  Sabbath  has 
not  yet  begun  ;  men  are  fooling  away  one  seventh  of  their  time 
on  a  false  notion  that  it  is  "  holy.''  That  "  day  "  is  here  used  lit- 
erally, is  also  evident  from  the  story  of  the  fourth  day's  work,  as 
given  in  Gen.  1  :  14-19.  The  lights  put  in  the  heavens  are  said 
to  be  for  days,  &c.,  and  to  divide  the  ligiit  from  the  darkness.  But 
this  story  of  creation  is  untrue,  because  it  gives  us  three  days  and 
three  nights  before  the  creation  of  sun,  moon  and  stars;  and  then 
goes  on  to  say  that  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  were  created  expressly 
to  be  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  for  years. 

"  14.  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven, 
to  divide  the  day  from  the  night  ;  and  let  them  be  for  signs,  and  for  sea- 
sons, and  fur  days,  and  fur  years. 

15.  And  let  them  be  for  lights  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven  to  give 
light  upon  the  earth  ;  and  it  was  so. 

16.  Ami  God  made  two  great  lights  ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day, 
and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night :  he  made  the  stars  also. 

17.  And  God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  to  give  light  upon 
the  earth, 

18.  And  to  rule  over  the  day,  and  over  the  night,  and  to  divide  the 
light  from  the  darkness  :  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good." 

Here  just  look  at  the  passage.  Now,  if  God  had  already  had 
three  days  and  three  nights,  without  sun,  moon  and  stars,  why 
should  he  create  them  for  the  very  purpose  of  ruling  over  day 
and  night?  In  the  account  of  the  first  day's  work  we  are  told 
that  God  created  light  and  divided  it  from  darkness,  and  if  so, 
why  does  he  create  sun,  moon  and  stars,  for  the  same  object,  three 
days  afterward  ?  The  ^tory  is  self-contradictory.  But  it  contra- 
dicts Astronomy  in  that  it  represents  the  heavens  and  earth,  the 
BUD,  and  all  the  planets  and  stars,  as  only  about  six  thousand 
years  old ;    while  it  is  u  dcm.jnsti  uted  fact  that  the  light  from 


1 

f 

III 
■ 


\i 


eome  of  tlie  netrest  of  the  fixed  stars  would  occupy  mMiom  of 
ages  to  reach  our  earth,  though  travelling  at  the  rate  of  one  huo- 
dhred  and  ninetj-two  thousand  ive  hundred  miles  in  a  single  sec- 
ond of  time ;  so  that  if  those  stars  were  only  six  thousand  years 
old,  they  would  be  invisible  to  this  earth's  inhabitants  lor  ages 
to  come.  And  yet,  men  will  believe  this  foolish  story,  written  by 
nobody  knows  whom,  when  or  where,  against  all  the  mathemati- 
cal demonstrations  of  the  Art  of  God  —  Astronomy.  The  Bible 
always  has  stood  in  the  way  of  scientific  discoveries.  It  was  thrown 
at  Galileo's  head,  but  he  dodged  it. 

Again,  this  account  contradicts  the  great  facts  and  demonstra- 
tions of  Astronomy,  being  contradictory  to  the  constitution  and 
course  of  things.  If  there  were  three  days  and  nights  without 
any  sun,  moon  or  stars,  then  has  the  whole  constitution  of  the 
uaiverse  been  changed,  and  essentially  reversed,  or  rather  inverted ; 
for  day  and  night  are  now,  and  always  have  been  since  human 
history  begun,  subject  to  the  revolution  of  the  earth  on  its  axis 
as  it  rolls  round  the  sun,  and  different  portions  of  its  surface 
being  presented  to  and  from  the  sun  alternately,  and  hence  the 
succession  of  day  and  night,  A  day  would  be  impossible  without 
the  sun,  and  could  you  blot  it  from  the  sky,  the  solar  system 
would  go  to  ruin.  Is  it  not,  then,  perfectly  evident  that  this 
story  of  creation  contradicts  the  divine  order,  as  displayed  in 
the  vast  and  magnificent  constitution  of  Nature?  And  can  a 
theory,  thus  contradictory  to  Nature,  he  true  ?  There  is  no  proof 
that  any  such  radical  change  as  is  presupposed  in  this  Genesaical 
account  has  ever  taken  place  in  Nature.  There  is  proof  to  tlie 
contrary.  Herschel  describes  stars  so  distant  that  the  light  from 
them  must  have  occupied  more  than  a  million  of  years  in  reachin 
this  earth.  And  this  is  not  a  specukliou,  but  a  mathoniatiual 
certainty.  The  constancy  and  immutability  of  Nature's  laws  are 
abundant  proof  against  such  unnatural  and  fabulous  assumptions, 
made  in  the  face  of  facts,  and  against  true  reason.  Must  we 
ignore  the  principles  of  Nature,  in  order  to  preserve  the  dignity 
and  importance  of  ancient  opinion  and  tradition?  If  we  aro 
thus  to  abandon  the  plain  teachings  of  Nature,  and  set  sail  ou  an 


I* 


65 

unknown  sea  of  fabulous  and  useless  speculation,  then  farewell 
to  all  science,  philosophy  and  progress. 

^  But  again,  the  Bible  theory  of  creation  contradicts  the  revela- 
tion of  God  in  the  earth  ^  Geology.     The  simple  facts  of  Geol- 
ogy are  destructive  of  Genesis.     Niagara's  voice,  for  more  than 
six  thousand  years,  has  pealed  a  hymn  of  praise  to  the  heavens ; 
and  this  is  proved  by  the  depth  and  length  of  the  channel  below 
the  falls.     According  to  the  latest  authority,  the  Mississippi  has 
flowed  in  its  present  bed  lor  more  than  one  hundred  thousand 
years.     "  The    turbid  waters  of  this  '  Father  of  Waters'  have 
laved  the  banks  of  cypress  swamps  along  its  course  for  untold 
ages."     The  bones  of  man,  of  the  type  of  the  North  American 
Indian,  have  been  exhumed  from  the  delta  of  the  Mississippi  at 
New  Orleans,  which  were  found  lying  below  the  fourth  forest 
level,  and,  making  large  allowance,  must  have  lain  there  for  more 
than  fifty  thousand  years.     The  exhumed  lelics  of  ancient  civili- 
zation in  the  valley  of  the  Nile  antedate  the  history  of  the  Jew- 
ish theocracy;  and  the  foot-prints  of  the  Creator  are  found  in 
the  granite  pages  of  the  primary  and  fossil ilerous  rocks,  long 
anterior  to  the  fabulous  era  of  this  Genesaical  history  of  cieatioil! 
Humboldt  describes  a  tree  now  growing  in  the  iamous  gardens 
of  Montezuma,  as  more  than  six  thousand  years  old  ;  and  another, 
in  Central  America,  as  but  little  less  than  twenty  thousand  years 
old. 

The  age  of  a  tree  is  very  easily  and  accurately  ascertained  by 
its  rings  of  annual  growth.  A  circular  saw  has  been  invenled, 
by  which  a  cylinder  of  solid  wood  can  be  taken  from  a  tree  of 
any  size,  extending  from  the  surface  to  tlie  centre  of  the  tree. 
In  this  way  Humboldt  and  others  have  ascertained  that  there  are 
now  living,  trees  of  an  age  which  transcends  the  biblical  chro- 
nology of  creation. 

And  now,  the  issue  before  us,  between  Genesis  and  Geology,  is 
II  plain  one.  I  have  shown  conclusively  that  the  word  "  day  "  is 
to  be  understood  as  a  day,  and  consequently  the  contradiction 
between  Genesis  and  Nature  is  unmistakable.  Now  which  shall 
¥©  abanHon  ?  To  me  the  choice  is  a  plain  one.  I  cannot  believe 
6» 


66 


I 

i  1 


that  God  tells  lies  iu  ilio  stars,  or  in  rocks ;  in  tbe  mountains  or 
riren  of  eurth ;  or  that  those  hugo  giants  of  the  forest  —  those 
centnrj-worn  sontinele  of  time  and  the  ages  gone — are  faithless  to 
their  great  niiasion  as  laudmarks  of  the  Crcutor's  doings;  and 
until  I  can  thus  abandon  yonder  star-lit  volume,  gleaming  with 
the  philosophy  of  creation;  until  I  can  reject  God's  granite 
record ;  until  I  can  reject  my  senses,  my  reason  and  my  intui- 
tion, I  cannot  accept  Genesis  as  true  and  infallible. 

4.  It  represents  the  Lams  of  Nature  as  suspended  or  tram- 
eendedf  as  i?i  Fairy-Land. 

In  Gen.  2:  21-24,  we  are  told  that  woniaii  w;!s  ^in^L^ularly 
manufactured  out  of  a  man's  rib,  thus  teaching  us  tha,l  ilic  first 
woman  came  from  a  man.  *'  But  if  it  was  so  once,  the  reverse 
has  been  the  case  ever  since."  A  man's  rib  metamorphosed  into 
a  woman!  The  organic  laws  of  humanity  —  of  all  Nature  — 
are  oppo.sed  to  this  foolish  story,  added  to  the  experience  and 
observation  of  thousands  of  years  of  human  history.  Iu  the  story 
of  the  "  Deluge  "  you  may  find  a  most  palpable  disregard  and 
ignorance  of  the  Laws  of  Nature. 

The  first  difficulty  in  the  way  of  believing  this  story  is  the  fact 
that  there  is  not  sufficient  water  on  the  globe  to  cover  the  tops 
of  the  highest  mountains,  about  five  miles  above  the  present 
ocean;  the  quantity  requisite  to  this  fact  being  eight  times 
greater  than  the  earth  and  surrounding  atmoyphere  has  capacity 
of  holding.  The  next  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  story's  being 
true,  is,  the  total  incapacity  of  the  Ark  to  contain  the  animals. 
The  Ark  was  only  about  four  hundred  and  fifty  ket  long,  seveuty- 
ive  feet  broad,  forty-five  feet  high.  The  iiunjber  of  ,s|)eeies  of 
animals  actually  known  and  described  by  zoologists,  is  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand,  and  the  probable  ntunber  existing  on  tlie 
globe  to-ilay  is  not  less  than  half  a  million.  Add  to  this  the 
great  amount  of  food  necessary  to  keep  them  for  one  year,  and 
none  but  an  idiot  can  fail  of  seeing  the  folly  of  asking  sane  minds 
to  believe  such  nonsense.  A  tliousand  species  of  niamtnalia,  six 
thousand  species  of  birds,  two  thousand  species  of  reptiles,  and 
one  hundred  and  twenty  thou-.nid  sp^-cies  of  insects,  fimst  have 
been  provided  with  spare  -mi]  food.     And,  besides,  it  is  to  be 


67 


remembered,  that  seven  males  and  females  of  each  species  of  the 
mammalia  were  taken,  —  fourteen  thousand  mammalia  in  the 
Ark;  and  taking  two  of  unclean  beasts,  and  seven  of  birds,  and 
then  the  insects,  and  we  have  a  fine  load  for  such  a  scow  as  Noah 
sailed  in. 

Just  think;  fourteen  elephants  and  their  food  for  a  year; 
fourteen  lions  and  sheep  enough  to  feed  them  for  a  year;  four- 
teen rhinoceroses  of  each  species,  and  five  species,  making  sev- 
enty of  this  large  animal ;  and  so  on  through  the  entire  range  of 
mammalia,  and  these  in  connection  with  nine  hundred  and  twenty- 
eight  thousand  of  the  remaining  animals,  all  shut  up  in  a  little 
pen  four  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long,  seventy-five  feet  broad,  and 
ibrfy-Gve  feet  high ;  with  only  one  door,  and  that  pitched  tight ; 
with  only  one  window,  and  that  in  the  top  of  the  roof;  and  for 
the  first  forty  days  shut  up  air-tight,  with  no  air  but  what  comes 
through  this  window ;  and  all  the  tilth  of  this  filthy  host  shut  up 
with  old  Noah  in  such  a  coop  ;  and  Noah  and  his  fanjily  obliged 
to  feed,  water,  and  clean  after  them,  and  all  their  filth  to  be  car- 
ried up  forty-five  feet  high  and  thrown  out  of  a  hole  in  the  roof 
less  than  twenty-two  inches  square!     What  a  monstrous,  silly 
fable  is  this  to  be  found  in  any  book,  much  more  in  "  God's  " 
Book  of  books !     Another  important,  insurmountable  difficulty 
in  this  story  are  the  facts,  brought  to  light  by  modern  science, 
respecting  the  distribution  of  animals  and  plants  on  the  globe. 
Suppose  tropical  animals  to  attempt  to  migrate  to  temperate  or 
frigid  zones,  they  must  inevitably  perish.     And  so  of  polar  ani- 
mals, should  they  attempt  to  take  up  their  residence  in  tropical 
or  temperate  climates.     And,  besides,  Nature  furnishes  impene- 
trable barriers,  which  many  animals  could  never  cross.     (See 
Hitchcock's  Religion  of  Geology,  pp.  128-131.)     Any  one  can 
see  at  a  glance  that  the  mammalia  and  their  food  alone  would 
fill  a  hundred  such  vessels;  and  the  food  for  the  carnivora  and 
the  graminivorous  animals  would  more  than  fill  such  a  vessel. 
The  story  is  totally  incredible. 

But  the  nature  of  this  whole  story,  and  the  character  of  its 
author's  intelligence,  are  clearly  revealed  in  a  single  verse.  (Gen 
1:  20),- 


II 


m 


69 


I 


•«  18.  And  the  waters  premled  exceedingly  upon  the  earth ;  and  all 

'tlie^  high  hills  that  were  under  the  whole  heaven  wei-e  covered. 
20.  Fifteen  cubits  apward  did  the  waters  prevail ;  and  the  mountains 

'Were  covered." 

*' Fifteen  cuhiis  upward  did  the  waters  prevail;  and  the 
mmntaim  were  cmeredJ'  A  Scripture  cubit,  according  to 
Webster,  is  less  than  twentj-two  ioches ;  so  that  the  tops  of 
the  mouotains  were  covered  by  twenty-seven  and  a  half  feet  of 
water.  Just  think  of  a  "  mountain  "  twenty-seven  and  a  half 
feet  above  tho  sea.  What  a  mountain!  This  one  passage  alone 
totally  annihilates  the  credibility  of  the  whole  story.  Its  ab- 
surdity is  too  palpable  to  need  further  comments 

Eut  there  are  many  more  such   things  in  the  Bible.     The 
plagues  of  Egypt,  the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Ked  Sea  on  dry 
land,  the  preservation  of  a  million  Jews  in  a  wilderness  forty 
years  without  laboring  for  food  or  raiment,  —  one  suit  of  clothes 
lasting  the  whole  time,  —  the  sun  and  moon  standing  still  at  the 
command  of  Joshua  to  enable  the  Jews  to  butcher  their  enemies 
by  daylight;  the  story  of  Sampson;  the  incestuous  origin  of  the 
Moabites ;  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Esau  ;  of  Jacob's  rod  policy 
to  steal  or  swindle  his  father-in-law's  best  cattle ;  the  miraculous 
pestilence ;  the  wonders  of  the  Ark  ;  the  story  of  the  miraculous 
shower  of  quails,  three  feet  and  a  half  deep,  thirty  miles  wide, 
all  around  the  Jewish  camp  —  sixty-six  miles  in  diameter ;  the 
miraculoua  conception  of  Jesus,  his  birth,  resurrection,  and  ascen- 
sion ;  the  miracles  ascribed  to  him ;  turning  water  into  wine ; 
raising  the  dead  to  life,  &c.,  &c., —  all  attest  the  utter  incredibility 
of  the  popular  assumptions  of  Bible  Infallibility,  on  the  ground 
©f  the  representations  of  Natural  Laws  being  transcended,  trans- 
formed, or  abolished  at  the  will, against  the  immutability  so  clearly 
written  all  over  the  constitution,  and  so  beautifully  illustrated  in 
the  oourse  of  things.     Some  of  these  stories  deserve  particular 
attention.     The  story  of  the  quails,  found  in  Numbers  11 :  31 ; 
the  origin  of  the  Bloabites  and  Ammonites,  in  Gen.  19  :  31-38; 
the  birth  and  character  of  Sampson,  found  in  Judges  13th,  14tli, 
15th  and  16th  chapters ;  and  the  wonders  of  the  Ark,  found  io 


1  Samuel  4th,  5th  and  6th  chapters,  are  of  this  sort.     To  take 
the  first.     Lot's  daughters  get  their  father  so  drunk  he  do«8  not 
know  anything,  and  then  conceive  and  have  children  by  him ; 
thus  violating  known  laws  of  physiology.     To  take  the  second 
story,  of  S.uipson  ;  of  all  of  the.n  tin's  is  the  most  absurd.     He  is 
represented  as  of  mir;.culous  birth,  possessing  miraculous  strength, 
which  lay  in  his  long  hair,  and  which  left  hira  when  his  hair  was 
shorn  off.     He  works  mightily  "  when  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
upon  him."     He  slays  a  young  lion,  catches  three  hundred  foxes, 
ties  tail  to  tail,  with  firebrands  between  them,  and  sends  them 
into  the  Philistines'  corn  to  destroy  it ;  breaks  the  cords  that 
bind  him,  and,  with   the  jawbone  of  an  ass,  slays  a  thousand 
men;  and  at  last  pulls  down  the  temple  of  Gaza  in  his  wrath, 
and  entombs  himself  with  thousands  of  Philistines  in  its  ample 
rums.     When  we  read  such  stories  in  Grecian  and  Koman  my- 
thology, of  Hercules  and  other  heroes,  we  ascribe  them  to  the 
fabulous  spirit  of  a  fabulous  and  mythological  age ;  to  human 
fancy  m  a  low  state  of  culture ;  and  so  all  unprejudiced  minds 
Will  do  with  this  story.     All  the  murders  which  Sampson  com- 
mitted are  ascribed  to  the  "Spirit  of  the  Lord,"  in  this  storj 
Judge  ye,  does  the  "Si-irit  of  the  Lord"  delight  i.i  blood  and 
nmrder  ?    To  take  the  stories  of  the  wonders  wrought  by  the 
Jewish  Ark  ;  the  mere  presence  of  the  Ark  before  °the  Dacron 
of  the  Philistines  caused  the  Dagon  to  fall  and  break  in  pieces. 
These  stories  may  possibly  be  believed  by  some  uncultured,  super- 
stitious and  credulous  minds;  but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  no 
sound,  candid  and  thinking  mind  can  believe  them  for  a  moment 
after  examination.     But  it  will  be  said  these  are  miracles      So 
are  the  stories  of  Hercules,  found  in  Hesiod  and  others,  as  much. 
And,  beside,  to  assume  that  these  stories  are  miraculous,  to 
prove  the  Bible  miraculous,  is  to  assume  one  miracle  to  prove 
another,   which  is  illogical,  and  also  is  begging  the  question 
What  would  a  Christian  think  of  a  Mormon  or  a  Mahometan 
Who,  to  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  or  Al-Koran' 
should  pomt  him  to  the  stories  of  miracles;  for  instance  to  the  * 
account  of  Joseph  Smith's  "Plates,"  their  origin,  or  to  tho 


! 


• 


70 


Koran's  story  of  the  ascension  of  Elijah  on  his  jiss  up  to  heaven  ? 
Would  a  Christian  not  laugh  at  the  Folly  of  such  a  plea?  These 
Btories  belong  to  the  fabulous  era  of  Jewish  mythology.  Fact 
and  fiction,  truth  and  falsehood,  are  strangely  woven  together  in 
the  Bible.  No  man  in  his  senses  will  contend  that  it  takes 
"  infallible  Divine  Inspiration  "  to  write  such  stories  as  these. 
Baron  Blunchausen,  Sinbad  the  Sailor,  Robinson  Crusoe,  are 
as  divine,  and  need  as  much,  though  of  a  higher  order  of  inspira- 
tion,  for  their  production,  as  do  these  Jewish  fables.  And  it  is 
counted  a  part,  an  indispensable  part  of  religion,  to  believe  these 
fables.  Indeed,  it  is  deemed  an  essential  part  of  Christianity,  in 
our  day,  to  believe  that  God  was  miraculously  engaged  in  inspir- 
ing the  authors  of  such  foolish  stories.  If  Christianity  can  suc- 
ceed only  by  demanding  credence  in  such  mythology,  let  it  perish 
forever  from  the  world. 

5.  It  contradicts  itself  in  mimerous  insta?ices.  I  will  begin 
by  quoting  the  least  important  contradictions  first. 

The  two  accounts  of  the  return  of  the  children  of  Israel  again 
to  Jerusalem  and  Judea  contradict  each  other  in  giving  the 
names  of  their  leaders. 

See  Ezra  2 :  2, —  See,  also,  Nehemiah  7 :  7, — 

Whicli   came   with   Zcrubbabel :  Who     came     with    Zcrubbabel, 

Jeshua,  Nehemiah    Seraiah,  Rcela-  Jeshua,  Nehemiah,  Azarlah,  Ra:ua- 

iah,    Mordecai,    Bilehan,,   Miipar,  iah,  Nahamani,  Mordccai,  Bilslian, 

Bigvai,  Rehiim,  Baanah.    Theniim-  Misperetli,  Bigvai,  Nehum,  Bfuuiiili. 

ber  of  the  men  of  the  people  of  Tlie  number,  /  say^  of  the  men  of 

Ismei  the  people  of  Israel  was  this. 

The  subjoined  are  a  very  few  specimens  of  the  many  numerical 
contradictions  of  the  Bible,  related  in  different  places,  which  give 
the  history  of  the  same  events.  Let  the  reader  carefully  examine 
|lhe  contexts  of  all  these  passages. 

f    Exodus  12 :  40, —  Acts  T :  6, — 

40.    Now  the    sojourfling  of  the       6.  And  God  spake  on  this  wise, 
children    of  Israel   who   dwelt  in   That  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a 
/  Egypt,  i«i«  four  hundred  and  thirty   strange  land  ;  and  that  they  should 
jmm,  *  bring  them  into  bondage,  and  en- 

treat them  efil  four  hundred  yeaiu 


71 

Gen.  46 :  27,—  Acts  7  :  14,^ 

27.  And  the  sons  of  Joseph  which  14.  Then  sent  Joseph,  and  called 

were  borne  him  in  Egypt,  were  two  his  father  Jacob  to  him,  and  all  his 

souls  :  all  the  souls  of  the  house  of  kindred,  threescore  and  fifteen  souls. 

Jiicob,  which  came  into  Egypt,  were 

threescore  and  ten. 


Numbers  25  :  9, — 

9.  And  those  that  died  in  the 
plague  were  twenty  and  four  thou- 
sand. 

2  Samuel  10 :  18,— 

18.  And  the  Syrians  fled  before 
Israel  ;  and  David  slew  the  men  of 
seven  humlrcd  cliariots  of  the  Svr- 
lans,  and  forty  thousand  horsemen, 
and  smote  Shobach  the  captain  of 
their  host,  who  died  there. 

Same. 


2  Samuel  24  :  3, — 

IS.  So  Gad  came  to  David,  and 
told  hiiu,  and  said  unto  him,  Sliall 
seven  years  of  famine  come  unto 
thee  in  thy  land  ?  or  wilt  thou  flee 
three  months  before  thine  enemies, 
while  they  pursue  thee?  or  that 
there  be  throe  days'  pestilence  in 
thy  land?  Now  advise,  and  see 
what  answer  I  shall  return  to  Mm 
that  sent  me. 

2  Samuel  24 :  9,— 

9.  And  Joab  gave  up  the  sum  of 


1  Corinthians  10  :  8,— 

8.  Neither  let  us  commit  fornica^ 
tion,  as  some  of  them  committed, 
and  fell  in  one  day  three  and  twenty 
thousand. 

1  Chronicles  18  :  4, — 

4.  And  David  took  from  him  a 
thousand  chariots,  and  seven  thou- 
sand horsemen,  and  twenty  thou- 
sand footmen  ;  David  also  houghed 
all  the  chariot-/ior.sts,  but  reserved 
of  them  an  hundred  chariots. 

1  Chronicles  19  :  18, — 

18.  But  the  Syrians  fled  before 
Israel :  and  David  slew  of  the  Syr- 
ians seven  thousand  men  which 
fouyhi  in  chariots,  and  forty  thou- 
sand footmen,  and  killed  Shophach 
the  captain  of  the  host. 

1  Chronicles  21 :  12, — 

12.  Either  three  years'  fominc : 
or  three  months  to  be  destroyed  be- 
fore thy  foes,  while  that  the  sword 
of  thine  enemies  overtaketh  thee ; 
or  else  three  days  the  sword  of  the 
Lord,  even  the  pestilence,  in  the 
land,  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
destroying  throughout  all  the  coasts 
of  Israel.  Now  therefore  advise 
thyself  what  word  I  shall  bring 
again  to  him  that  sent  me. 

1  Chronicles  21 :  5, — 

6.  And   Joab  gave  the  sum  of 


\k 


n 


111*  mmiber  of  the  people  unto  the  the  number  of  the  people  unto 
Mug  :  aiifl  there  were  in  Israel  David.  And  all  they  of  Isniel  were 
eight  hundrecl  thousand  viiliant  men  ft  thousand  thousand  and  an  hun- 
thiit  drew  the  sword  ;  and  the  men  dred  thousand  men  that  drew  sword: 
of  Judah  were  ive  hundred  thou-  and  Judah  was  tour  hundred  thre©- 
9md  men.  score  and  ten  thousand  men  that 

drew  sword. 


1  Chronicles  11 :  11,— 

It.  And  this  is  the  number  of 
mij^'hty  men  whom  David  had  ; 
Jashobeam     an    Ilachmonite,    the 

cliief  of  the  captains  ;  lie  lifted  up 
Ms  spear  against  three  hundred 
slain  %  him  at  bne  time. 


2  Samuel  23 :  8, — 

8.  These  be  the  names  of  the 
mighty  men  whom  David  had :  The 
Tiichmonite  that  sat  in  the  seat, 
chief  among  the  captains  ;  the  same 
was  Adino  the  Eznite  :  he  lijted  up 
his  spiar  against  eight  hundred, 
whom  he  slew  at  one  time. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  a  close  and  critical  view  of  the  foregoing 
contradictions,  that  no  human  skill  can  reconcile  them. 

Some  maj  say,  they  are  not  important.  But  I  answer,  will 
God  inspire  men  infallibly  and  miraculously  to  write  unimpor- 
tant things  —  and  contradictions  at  that  ?  A  single  error  con- 
demns the  Bible's  infiillibility,  and  of  course  its  divinity.  And 
besides,  once  admit  a  small  mistake,  and  you  open  the  door  for 
endless  corruptions. 

I  make  the  following  references  to  the  promises  and  prophecies 
of  the  Bible,  said  to  have  been  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed, 
that  they  should  possess  the  land  of  Canaan  forever,  and  bo 
multiplied  as  the  dust  of  the  earth ;  and,  in  opposition  to  these 
promises,  I  set  those  passages  which  show  conclusively  the  utter 
failure  of  those  promises  and  prophecies.  They  were  not,  and 
never  can  be  fulfilled.  As  a  people,  the  Jews  are  not  now,  and 
have  not  been  for  centuries,  in  possession  of  Canaan.  "  They  are 
swallowed  up  in  the  tide  of  nations."  Jerusalem  is  in  ruins. 
The  old  ritual,  which  was  to  be  eternal,  is  not  the  law  of  Pales- 
tine; and  no  combination  of  circumstances  can  ever  reinstate 
this  lonely,  wandering  people  on  the  soil  of  the  promised  land. 
Their  own  selfishness,  which  constitutes  the  very  soul  of  their 
religion,— -  of  the  decalogue  itself  even,  —  is  and  will  be  their  con- 


73 

stant  evil  genius,  who,  with  black  wing,  croaks  aloud  o'er  their 
ruined  altars  and  temples.  Like  a  spirit  of  destruction  has 
It  ever  presided  over  the  counsels  of  the  Synagogue  and  the 
oannedrim. 

But  to  the  contradictions  : 


PROMISES  AND  PKOPHECIES. 

Genesis  12  :  7,  15, — 

7.  And  the  Lord  appeared 
unto  Abram,  and  said,  Unto  thy 
seed  wiU  I  give  this  land:  and 
there  builded  he  an  altar  unto  the 
LoED,  who  appeared  unto  him. 

15.  For  all  the  land  which  thou 
eeest,  to  thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to 
thy  seed  forever. 

Genesis  13  :  16, — 

16.  And  I  will  make  thy  seed  as 
the  dust  of  the  earth  :  so  that  if  a 
man  can  number  the  dust  of  the 
earth,  then  shall  thy  seed  also  be 
numbered. 

Genesis  13 :  17,  18, — 

17.  Arise,  walk  through  the  land 
in  the  length  of  it  and  in  the  breadth 
of  it ;  for  I  will  give  it  unto  thee. 

18.  Then  Abram  removed  his 
tent,  and  came  and  dwelt  in  the 
plain  of  Mamre,  which  is  in  Hebron, 
and  built  there  an  altar  unto  the 

LOBD. 

Genesis  15  :  5, — 

5.  And  he  brought  him  forth 
abroad,  and  said.  Look  now  toward 
heaven,  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou 
be  able  to  number  them :  and  he 
said  unto  him,  So  shall  thy  seed  be. 

Genesis  17  :  8, — 

8.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and 
7 


THEIR  FAILUllE. 

1  Kings  9 :  7, — 

7.  Then  I  will  cut  off  Israel  out 
of  the  land  which  I  have  given 
them  ;  and  this  house  which  I  have 
hallowed  for  my  name,  will  I  cast 
out  of  my  sight ;  and  Israel  shall  be 
a  proverb  and  a  b^-word  among  all 
people. 

Ezekiel29:  15,— 

15.  It  shall  be  the  basest  of  the 
kingdoms  ;  neither  shall  it  exalt  it- 
self any  more  above  the  nations : 
for  I  will  diminish  them,  that  they 
shall  no  more  rule  over  the  nations. 

2  Kings  17  :  20,— 

20.  And  the  Lord  rejected  all  the 
seed  of  Israel,  and  afflicted  them, 
and  delivered  them  into  the  hand 
of  spoilers,  until  he  had  cast  them 
out  of  Ms  sight. 


2  Chronicles  29  :  9,— 

9.  For  lo,  our  fathers  have  fallen 
by  the  sword,  and  our  sons  and  our 
daughters  and  our  wives  are  in 
captivity  for  this. 

Isaiah  18:  2,— 
2.  That  sendeth  ambassadors  by 


74 


"I  V 


to  tlij  eeed  titer  thm,  tlie  land 
wliefdn  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the 
land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlaeting 
fOflsession  :  and  I  will  be  their  God. 
4.  As  tor  me,  behold,  my  cove- 
nant is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  'be 
a  father  of  many  nations. 

Genesis  28 :  14, — 

14.  And  thy  seed  shall  be  as  the 

dust  of  earth  ;  and  tiiuu  shalt  spread 
abroad  to  the  west,  and  to  the  east, 
and  to  the  north,  and  to  the  south  : 
and  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all 

the  fiimiMes  of  the  earth  be  blessed. 


sea,  eren  in  Tessels  of  bulrushes 
upon  the  waters,  saying.  Go,  yo 
swift  messengers,  to  a  nation  scat- 
tered and  peeled,  to  a  people  terri- 
ble ft'om  their  beginning  hitherto  : 
a  nation  meted  out  and  trodden 
down,  whose  land  the  rivers  have 
spoiled  ! 

Isaiah  18  :  7, — 

7.  In  that  time  shall  the  present 
be  brought  unto  the  Lord  of  hosts 
of  a  people  scattered  and  peeled, 
and  from  a  people  terrible  from 
their  beginning  hitherto  ;  a  nation 
meted  out  and  trodden  under  toot, 
whose  liind  tlie  rivers  have  spoiled, 
to  the  place  of  the  name  of  the 
LoBD  of  hosts,  the  mount  Zion. 

See,  also,  Deuteronomy  8:  7,  and  Jeremiah  18:  16;  Deut. 
11:  89,  and  Jere.  25  :  11 ;  Deut.  11  :  23,  and  Ezekiel  12: 
15;  Deut.  11:  24,  and  Ezek.  12:  16;  Joshua  1:  3,  and 
ikeL29:  12;  Joshua  1 :  4,  and  Ezek.  29:  14;  Jere.   33: 

17,  and  Hosea  3 :  12. 

There  are  mmj  other  passages  to  the  same  effect. 


CHAPTEK    VIII, 

NEW   TESTAMENT   CONTRADICTIONS. 

if  AiTHiw  and  Luke  contradict  each  other  in  giving  the  geneal- 
ogy of  Jesus.    Compare  Matthew  1  :  1-18,  with  Luke  3:  23-38. 

Both  agree  that  Jesus  was  descended  from  David  on  his  fath- 
er*s  side.  Matthew  makes  twenty-fi?e  generations  hetween  Joseph 
and  David,  while  Luke  makes  forty  generations ;  and  many  names 
—  some  thirty-eight  —  are  mentioned  by  Luke,  which  are  not 
mentioned  by  Matthew  at  all.  And  both  these  genealogies  con- 
tofidicfc  the  corresponding  genealogies  in  the  Old  Testament. 


75 

After  both  admit  that  Jesus  was  descended  from  David,  natur- 
ally, and  give  these  contradictory  genealogies  to  prove  it,  they 
both  affirm  that  he  had  no  human  father  —  that  "  Mary  was  with 
child  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"     Still  further:     Matthew  traces  his 
descent   through  the   illustrious  Solomon,  and  Luke  traces  it 
through  the  obscure  Nathan,  the  brother  of  Solomon.     Now, 
how  could  he  be  descended  at  once  from  both  Solomon,  and  from 
Solomon's  brother  Nathan?     And,  if  he  had  no  human  father, 
how  was  he  descended  from  David  at  all?     Are  we  to  believe 
such  contradictory  statements,  such  self-destructive  and  astound- 
ing stories,  on  the  testimony  of  two  men,  whom  we  know  nothing 
of,  only  from  their  own  statements  ?     Are  we  to  receive  as  true, 
as  the  infallible  word  of  God,  such  miserable  historical  blunders, 
Buch  contradictions  of  all  organic  laws,  on  the  mere  ipse  dixit 
of  Scripture  ?     Would  a  virgin  be  believed  to-day,  who,  when 
found  with  child,  should  tell  such  a  story  as  that  here  ascribed 
to  Mary  ?    Jesus  never  referred  to  it  in  his  life.     There  is  no 
proof  in  the  New  Testament  that  he  believed  a  word  of  it.    Even 
divine  power  cannot  make  both  these  stories  true.     Some  may 
say  that  Luke  gives  Mary's  genealogy.     But  the  fact  is,  that  he 
pretends  to  give  the  genealogy  of.  Joseph,  and  not  of  Mary  at 
all.     Not  a  word  does  he  say  of  Mary's  genealogy.     The  Jews 
never  give  the  genealogy  of  women. 

But  there  are  other  contradictions,  which  require  attention 
here.  The  accounts  with  regard  to  his  death  are  contradictory. 
(See  Mark  15  :  25,  and  John  19 :  14.)  Mark  says,  "  And  it 
was  the  third  hour  (nme  o'clock),  and  they  crucified  him  ;  "  while 
John  gives  us  to  understand  that  it  was  about  the  sixth  hour 
(twelve  o'clock)  when  sentence  was  passed  upon  him,  when  he 
was  delivered  up  by  Pilate.  The  one  has  him  actually  crucified 
before  the  other  gets  him  into  the  hands  of  the  high  priests. 
Both  stories  cannot  be  true ;  but  both  tnay  be  false,  and  one 
certaifdy  must  be  untnie. 

Th£re  are  cmUradictory  accounts  of  the  visitors  to  Jesus' 
sepulchre,  and  of  the  resurrection.  Matthew  begins  by  telling 
us,  Matthew  28 :  1,— 


76 


tc 


^ 


III 


I'll  III 


Mm  tlie  ei«i  of  tie  Sabbath,  m  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  irst  day 

of  the  week, came  Mary  MagdaloE©  and  the  other  Mary  to  the  sepulchre." 

Mark,  16:  1,  2,  tells  us, — 

*'  1.  And  when  the  Sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  had  bought  sweet  spices,  that  they  might 
come  and  anoint  him. 

2.  And  very  early  in  the  morning,  tlie  first  day  of  the  week,  they  came 

unto  the  aepuichi*e  at  the  rising  of  the  sun.'* 

And  John  begiDS  by  telling  ns,  John  20 :  1,- 

"The  first  day  of  tho  week  oometh  Mary  Magdalene,  when  it  was  yet 

dark,  unto  the  sepulchre,  and  seeth  the  stone  taken  away  from  the  sepul- 

•lire." 

While  Luke  tells  m  that  the  women  which  followed  Jesus  from 

Galilee,  and  others,  came.     Luke  23 :  55,  and  also  24  :  1, — 

••  Now  upon  the  iirst  day  of  the  week,  very  early  in  the  morning,  they 
came  unto  the  sepulchre,  bringing  the  spices  which  they  had  prepared, 

and  ee:rtain  others  with  them." 

Matthew  sends  two  women,  and  John  one,  to  the  sepulchre. 
Mark  sends  seYeral  others.  John  finds  Mary  Magdalene  at  the 
sepulchre  while  it  is  yet  dark,  and  Mark  finds  Mary  Magdalene 
ud  several  others  with  her  at  the  sepulchre,  but  not  until  sun- 
rise. The  contradictions  thioken  is  the  accounts  proceed.  Mat- 
thew describes  an  earthquake,  and  (me  ansel,  who  rolled  away 
the  stone  .nd  spoWe  to  I  two  wo^en.  JoL  U  totally  oblivio^ 
of  the  earthquake  and  the  angel ;  but  describes  Mary  Magdalene 
as  seeing  the  stone  taken  away,  and  going  after  Peter  and  the 
beloved  disciple,  and  alone.  Mark  describes  the  woman  as  look- 
ing into  the  sepulchre,  and  seeing  one  young  man,  clothed  in 
white,  sitting  on  the  right.  Luke  describes  the  several  women 
as  coming  to  the  sepulchre,  and,  finding  the  stone  away,  went 
into  the  sepulchre ;  but,  when  they  saw  not  the  body  of  Jesus, 
they  were  perplexed,  and  all  at  once  two  men  stood  by  them  in 
*•  Aining  garments.'*  Matthew  represents  his  one  angel  as  send- 
ing his  two  women,  one  of  whom  was  Mary  Magdalene,  after,  or 
ntker  to  tell  the  disciples,  and,  as  they  went,  as  meeting  Jesus 


77 


himself,  as  holding  him  by  the  feet,  &c.    John  represents  his 
om  woman  ^  the  same  Mary  Magdalene -- as  seeing  two  angels 
m  the  sepulchre;  and,  turning  round,  meets  Jesus  right  at  the 
sepulchre,  and,  instead  of  being  allowed  to  hold  his  feet,  she  is 
forbidden  to  touch  him.     There  are  many  more  contradictions 
and  msurmountable  objections  in  these  accounts,  on  which  it  is 
needless  to  dwell  at  present.    No  human  skill  can  reconcile  these 
pomt-blank  discrepancies.    All  these  stories  cannot  be  true.   All 
but  one  must  be  false ;  for  no  two  agree.     My  opinion  is  they 
are  all  untrue.    They  all  bear  the  unmistakable  marks  of  forgery 
We  don't  know  who  wrote  them,  as  I  have  before  shown.     We 
don't  know  when  they  were  written.     We  only  know  this,  they 
contradict  each  other,  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  a  dead  physical  body,  in  total  contradiction  to  the  known  laws 
of  organic  existence,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  experience 
of  the  whole  human  race  for  thousands  of  years.     I  believe  the 
story  to  be  a  pure  fabrication,  and,  when  received  as  divine,  full 
of  untold  injury  to  the  believer. 

But  there  are  insurmountable  contradictions  in  the  doctrines- 
and  teachings  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament.  Now, 
readers,  don't  misunderstand  me.  I  believe  there  was  a  man,  — 
a  glorious  reformer,  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  —  and  I  believe,  too, 
that  he  was  a  much  better  man  than  the  New  Testament  makes 
him  out  to  be,  and  more  consistent.  But  I  don't  believe  he  was 
a  God  aiiy  more  than  Pythagoras,  or  Socrates,  or  Confucius, 
were  Gods.  I  don't  believe  he  was  infallible.  But  more  of  this 
hereafter.  Now  to  the  New  Testament  doctrinal  contradictions. 
Matthew  5  :  17,  represents  Jesus  as  saying  to  his  disciples,— 

"  17.  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets  ;  I 
am  come  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil. 

18.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled." 

While  in  the  same  chapter  be  is  represented  as  annulling  it,  in 
88  to  44, — 

"43.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
l>or  and  hate  thine  enemy.'* 

7* 


>e  < 


I 


1 


18 

fliii  quoting  raaxims  and  sayiagB,  which  ire  perfect  cniboili- 
iMite  of  th©  old  law,  and  aoinilling  thein  by  cominaDdii>g  jual 
the  opposite  course  of  action. 

In  Matthew  16 :  6-13,  Jesus  if  represented  as  telling  his  din- 
•iples  to  beware  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  ; 
while  in  Matthew  23 :  1-3,  he  is  represented  as  conMimiiding 
Ihein  to  observe  and  do  whatsoever  those  same  Scribes  aud  Pliiu- 
isees  bid  them,  and  then  immediately  goes  on  to  denounce  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the  bitterest  terms  imaginable,  calling 
them  ^^kypocriies;'  *»blind  guides,"  "fools,"  *»  whitcd  sepnlcbreb;' 
** serpents;'  "generation  of  vipers."  Bid  he  wish  his  disciplca 
to  "o^wrwayKl  (lb  whatsoever"  "hypocrites,"  "blind  guides," 
•* fools,"  "serpents/'  and  "vipers,"  should  bid  them?  Was 
tlesus  iueh  a  fool  m  to  wish  such  dictators  for  his  disciples,  sim- 
|>ly  because  '*  they  sat  in  Moses'  seal "  ? 

In  Matthew  5th,  he  says,— 

"44.  But  I  »y  unto  you.  Love  your  ememiea,  blew  them  lbs*t  cure© 

you, do  good  to  tliem  tl»t  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  iksiMtefully 
use  you,  and  po^reecmte  you : 

45.  That  you  may  be  th©  children  ©f  your  Father  wMch  m  in  iK-aven  ; 
fcr  he  maketh  his  aim  to  rise  on  the  e?il  «ul  on  the  good,  and  Mcndeth 
min  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.** 

While  in  Luke  14 :  25,  he  is  represented  as  saying  to  the  mul- 
titude which  had  assembled  to  hear  him, — 

"26.  If  any  man  oome  to  me,  and  l»to  not  his  Cither,  and  mother, 
and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethreu,  and  siiters,  yea,  and  hii  own  life 

also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple." 

But  some  will  say  this  latter  passage  is  not  to  be  understood 
literally;  it  don't  mean  that  his  disciples  are  actually  to  /mte 
their  nearest  kindred.  But,  I  answer,  if  it  don't  mean  so,  why 
does  it  say  so?  And  again,  if  this  passage  is  not  to  be  taken 
literally,  by  what  rule  is  the  first  one,  in  Matthew  5  :  44,  to  be 
proved  literal  f 

Bit  another  says —the  last  one  —  the  command  to  hate  one's 
Iwt  friends  only  means  that  they  are  to  be  loved  less  than 


79 


Jesus ;  that  they  must  be  regarded  as  having  less  claim  on  our 
affections  than  Jesus  has.     But  I  answer,  this  is  making  a  new 
Bible.     If  Jesus  meant  to  be  so  understood,  could  he  not  have 
said  so  as  easily  as  any  modern  Christian  ?     But,  suppose  he  did 
mean  so ;  are  we,  therefore,  to  obey  a  command  which  thus  bids 
us  love  a  stranger  (no  matter  what  his  unsupported  claims)  more 
than  our  "fathers,  mothers,  sisters,  wives,  ay,  our  own  life"? 
If  Jesus  were  God,  would  he,  could  he,  have  thus  violated  one 
of  his  own  laws,  inwrought  in  the  very  souls  of  his  children,  by 
commanding  them  to  do  what  is,  and  always  must  be,  while  the 
holiest  affections  of  humanity  remain  a  part  of  itself,  a  perfect 
impossibility?    And,  beside,  admitting  Jesus  to  be  "God,"  has 
he  established  such  antagonistic  relations  between  himself  and 
his  creatures,  that,  to  love  him  as  God,  we  are  to  hate  our  most 
sacred  relations,  or,  if  you  please,  to  love  them  less?     To  love 
God  more  is  it  necessary  to  love  our  nearest  and  dearest  friends 
less,  or,  still  worse,  to  hate  them  ?     The  contradiction  is  palpa- 
ble; all  apologies  are  futile,  are  self-destructive. 

There  are  many  more  contradictions  in  the  New  Testament. 
Take  the  following  as  specimens.  In  Luke  2  :  14,  angels  are 
represented  as  saying,  in  heralding  the  birth  and  mission  of 
Jesus,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  peace  on  earth,  good  will 
to  men."  While  in  Luke  12 :  51,  Jesus  himself  is  represented 
as  saying, — 

61.  Suppose  ye  that  I  came  to  give  peace  on  earth?    I  tell  you  nav  • 
but  rather  division."  "^  ' 

See,  also,  Matthew  10 :  34.  If  Jesus  told  the  truth  here, 
tlie  angels  sang  a  most  delusive  strain.  Perhaps  they  did  not 
understand  his  character  and  mission.  If  they  did,  then  tliey 
were  deceivers  and  hypocrites.  If  they  did  not  understand  it, 
they  ought  not  to  have  sung  at  all.  But  some  may  say,  he  only 
meant  that  division  would  come  as  a  consequence  of  the  wick- 
edness of  the  world  arrayed  in  opposition  to  his  teachings. 
But  such  an  idea  is  precluded  by  a  passage  in  Matthew  10  : 
34, — 


:  )i 


Jl 


oU 


81 


««  U.  Thmk  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  eartli ;  I  came  not  to 

wnd  peace,  but  a  sword. 

85.  For  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance  against  his  fotlier,  and  the 
daughter  against  her  mother,  and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her  mother- 
in-law." 

Here  he  represents  himself  as  coming  on  purpose  to  create 
discord  —  to  break  up  families.  This  he  declares  positively. 
It  is  the  object  of  his  mission,  as  set  forth  in  this  passage.  The 
word  "  sword  **  is  a  type  of  war.  Does  God  descend  on  earth 
to  carry  war  into  the  nations?  Can  Dirinity  find  nothing  better 
to  do  ?  Nothing  more  worthy  infinite  power,  love,  and  wisdom  ? 
JDon't  forget  that  he  declares,  "  I  came  mt  to  send  peace,  but  a 
sword."  He  negatives  all  idea  of  a  mission  of  peace.  Nega- 
tively, he  does  not  come  to  calm  the  troubled  souls  and  jarring 
elements  of  ''Home,  Sweet  Home;'*  he  does  not  come  to  quiet 
the  domestic  circle,  to  breathe  the  beautiful  spirit  of  harmony 
into  the  family  or  the  nations ;  but,  positively,  he  comes  to  do 
just  the  reverse  of  all  this — to  set  them  "at  variance."  If 
such  was  Jesus'  mission,  the  Christian  church  has  perfectly  ac- 
coniplished  it.  It  has  been  entirely  and  always  true  to  the 
declared  mission  of  its  assumed  founder.  It  has  been  a  mon- 
strous fountain  of  lies,  of  superstition,  of  tyranny,  of  war,  of 
blood,  of  persecution,  of  corruption,  of  crime,  and  of  social,  na- 
tional, and  religious  desolation.  The  squares  of  populous  cities 
—  **of  Antioch,  of  Byzantium,  of  Jerusalem,  of  Damascus,  of 
Kome,  the  plains  of  the  Low  Countries,"  and  tijc  "  Holy  Inquisi- 
tion," with  ita  rack,  dungeons,  and  gibbets,  all  bathed  and  black- 
ened in  the  blood  of  ita  slauchtered  millions — victims  to  its 
entire  and  triumphant  success,  in  the  fulElnient  of  its  mission. 

Matthew  tells  us  that  Judas  repented,  when  he  saw  that  Jesus 
was  condemned,  and  brought  the  pieces  of  silver  and  threw  them 
fti  the  feet  of  the  chief  priests,  '*  and  went  and  hanged  him- 
self;" and  that  the  priests  took  those  pieces  of  silver  and 
••  bought  the  Potter's  Field."  But  the  writer  of  Acts  tells  us 
that  Judas  purchased  a  field  "with  the  reward  of  iniquity," — 
iiom  same  pieces  of  silver,  —  "  and,  falling  headlong,  burst  open 


in  the  midst,  and  his  bowels  gushed  out."    Now,  if  Judas,  as 
Matthew  says,  threw  that  silver  down  at  the  chief  priests'  feet, 
and  if  those  priests  took  up  that  silver  and  bought  the  Potter's 
Field,  Judas  certainly  did  not  purchase  the  field,  as  Acts  tells  us. 
How  could  he  buy  it  after  he  had  "hanged  himself"?     But, 
again  :  If  Judas  "hanged  himself,"  as  Matthew  says,  he  could 
not  have  come  to  his  death  by  "falling  headlong  and' bursting 
asunder  in  the  midst,''  in  a  field  which  he  purchased  after  he  had 
hanged  himself,  as  Acts  tells  us.     I  was  once  told,  in  reply  to 
this  point,  by  a  priest,  that  Judas  probably  hanged  himself,  and 
the  rope  broke,  and  so  he  fell  and  burst.    But  it  is  quite  strange 
how  a  man,  hanging  by  the  neck,  could  "  fall  headlong."     He 
would  be  quite  likely  to  fall  feet  "  long."     And,  beside,  if  this 
supposition  were  legitimate,  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  does  not  touch 
half  the  story.     If  Judas  bought  the  field,  the  chief  priests  did 
not ;  and  vice  versa.     But  there  is  another  grand  difficulty  in 
this  story.     Matthew  tells  us  that  the  buying  of  the  potter's 
field  by  the  chief  priests  was  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  ut- 
tered by  Jeremiah  or  "  Jeremy,"  and  then  pretends  to  quote  the 
prophecy  as  follows,  — 

"  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet, 
saying.  And  they  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that 
was  valued,  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value ; 

And  gave  them  for  the  potter's  field,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me." 

Now,  reader,  there  is  not  such  a  passage  anywhere  in  "  Jere- 
my," or  in  any  other  of  the  prophets,  or  any  other  book  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  pretended  "  prophecy  "  is  evidently  forged 
by  the  writer  of  Matthew  to  suit  the  occasion.  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians were  once  —  in  the  first  century  and  onward  —  in  the 
habit  of  ''lyi/ig  for  tke  i7Uerest  of  religion,''  and  considered  it, 
as  I  have  before  shown,  as  commendable  so  to  do. 


I 
I 


lllL 


h 


11 1 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE  BIBLE  SANCTIONS   POLITICAL   DESPOTISM, 

In  llomans  IS :  1-2,  we  find  the  following  passage : 

*•  Of  subjection  io  magidraies. 

•'1.  Let  every  soul  l>e  subject  unto  tlie  higher  powers.     For  there  is  no 

power  but  of  God  ;  the  powers  that  be  are  onlaiued  of  God. 

2.  Wiiosoever  therefore  resiateth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of 
God  ;  and  tliej  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation." 

This  chapter  begins  with  a  command  to  every  soul  to  be  in 
Biibjeetion  to  rulers.  And  see  the  reason  given  —  negatively, 
*'  For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God ; "  and  positively,  *'  All  powers 
are  ordained  of  God."  Here  is  a  monstrous  lie,  given  as  a  reason 
why  every  soul  should  be  "  subject  to  the  powers  that  be."  Reader, 
do  you  believe  that  God  "  ordained"  the  government  of  Kussia, 
or  the  laws  and  magistrates  of  Rome?  Bo  you  believe  that  the 
ehive  codes  of  ancient  Rome,  and  of  the  modern  "  Barbary  States  " 
of  America,  are  *•  ordained  of  God  **  ?  If  such  "  powers  as  be  '* 
to-day  can  come  of  God  or  good,  in  the  name  of  common  sense, 
what  can  come  from  the  devil  or  evil?  Do  you  believe  that  for 
disobeying  the  requisitions  of  the  fugitive-slave  code,  you  will  be 
daiinied?  That  code  was  ordained  by  the  "powers  that  be;" 
has  it,  therefore,  the  sanction  of  God?  The  Bible  says  it  has. 
Washington  and  his  glorious  compatriots  actively  resisted  the 
powers  of  the  British  government.  Are  they  damned  ?  If  the 
Bible  be  true  they  are.  Washington's  noble  brow,  once  illumin- 
ated with  the  living  flame  of  freedom,  is  now  dinmied  with  the 
Bmoke  of  the  pit,  and  across  its  once  radiant  front,  now  charred 
and  cindered  with  the  fires  of  hell,  is  written  in  letters  of  eternal 
ire,  •*  I  resisted  the  poivers  that  he,  and  I  am  damned^'  while 
George  the  Thir<l,  safely  clutching  at  the  revenue  derived  from 
the  "  stamp  act,"  is  folded  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham.  But  this 
chapter  goes  on : 

**  3.  For  rulew  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the  evil.    Wilt 


83 

thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power?  do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou 
Bhalt  have  praise  of  the  same." 

Are  not  our  rulers  a  terror  to  good  works?    Are  they  not  a 
terror  to  those  who  would  harbor,  and  feed,  and  clothe  a  poor 
hunted  fugitive  slave,  flying  from  the  house  of  bondage  to  a  land 
of  liberty  ?     You  know  they  are.     Are  not  the  rulers  of  Russia 
a  terror  to  the  good  works  of  the  poor,  oppressed  subjects,  strug- 
gling for  freedom?     Are  not  the  rulers  of  England  a  terror  to 
the  good  works  of  her  mechanics,  her  ill-fed,  ill-clothed  and  illy- 
educated  operatives,  and  to  her  starving  Irish,  crying  for  bread  ? 
Is  there  a  nation  whose  rulers  are  not  and  have  not  always  been 
a  terror  to  good  works,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  ?    There  is 
not.     All   human   history   proves   there   is   not.     Do  men  get 
praise  by  their  rulers  for  good  works?     They  do  not.     They 
often  get  imprisoned  for  them.     Again,  in  1  Peter  2 :  13,  we  are 
told: 

"  13.  Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  for  the  Lord's  sake  : 
whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  supreme.'* 

Some  may  say  that  Paul,  in  these  passages,  only  meant  that 
good  "powers  that  be"  —  righteous  rulers,  are  ordained  of  God. 
But  this  latter  passage  destroys  such  a  supposition.     And,  be- 
side, if  Paul  meant  righteous  "  powers,"  why  did  he  not  say  so  ? 
Whydidhesay,  "The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God"?  Paul 
lived   in   an   age   when   the   government  of  Rome  sanctioned, 
established,  upheld  and  propagated,  the  most  crushing  system  of 
slavery  the  sun  ever  shone  upon  ;  and  that,  too,  when  Nero  sat 
upon  the  imperial  throne,  as  chief  ruler.     And  yet,  not  a  word 
does  Paul  say,  either  against  slavery  or  the  slave  oligarchy  of 
his  time;  not  a  lisp  against  these  unjust  rulers;  but,  in  the  face 
of  imperial  tyranny,  surrounded  by  crushed  and  bleeding  slaves, 
whose  groans  loaded  every  breeze,  made  so  by  the  "  powers  that 
be,"  he,  in  a  voice  Of  divine  authority,  declares,  "The  powers 
that  be  are  ordained  of  God;"  and  then  threatens  with  damna- 
tion  all  who  resist  those  powers,  commanding  men  "  to  submit  to 


k 


HI 


i 


84 

merf  mriinafice  of  man,  for  the  Lord's  sake:*  If  this  is  not 
sanctioning  political  despotism,  nothing  can  sanction  it.  We 
know  that  governments  are  equally  in  the  habit  of  oppressing 
the  weak,  of  plundering  the  poor,  and  of  kidnapping  men,  women 
and  childreo ;  and  yet  the  Bible  says,  "  Do  good,  and  thou  shalt 
hme  praise  ©f  the  same,"  More  damning  doctrines  never  found 
iitteranc©  in  any  language,  or  in  any  book  on  earth.  This  13th 
chapter  has  for  eighteen  hundred  years  been  a  refuge  of  lies  for 
tyrants  and  oppressors, 

7.  The  Bibk  samtimis  slavery  —  the  chattelizing  of  human 
beings,  soul  and  body.  It  represents  God,  through  Noah,  as 
€iirsing  the  posterity  of  Ham  — dooming  one-third  of  the  human 
race  to  servitude.    See  Gen.  9 :  25, — 


[   r' 


111' 

'  i 


«  And  he  saicl.  Cursed  be  Canaan  ;  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be 
unto  Ms  brethren." 

You  can  see  how  this  curse  was  sanctioned,  perpetuated  and 
carried  out  on  the  Canaanites — the  descendants  of  Ham's  son, 
Canaan,  by  turning  to  the  25th  chapter  of  Leviticus, — 


cc 


M 


39.  And  if  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee  be  waxen  poor,  and  be 
sold  unto  thee,  thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve  as  a  bond-servant : 

40.  But  m  hired  servant,  and  m  a  sojourner  he  shall  be  with  thee,  and 

sliall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of  jubilee' : 

41.  And  then  he  shall  depart  from  thee,  both  he  and  his  children  with 
hini,  and  shall  i-eturn  unto  his  own  family,  and  unto  the  possession  of  his 
fathers  shall  he  return. 

42.  For  they  are  my  servants  which  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt ;  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bond-men, 

43.  Thou  shalt  not  rale  over  him  with  rigor,  but  shalt  fear  thy 
God. 

44.  Both  thy  bond-men  and  thy  bond-maids,  which  thou  shalt  have, 
shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you  ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy 
bond-men  and  bond-uiaiils. 

45.  Moreover  of  the  children  of  tlie  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among 
you  ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  th;it  are  with  you,  which 
they  begat  in  your  land  ;  and  they  shall  be  your  possession. 

46.  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  yoU| 
t©  inherit  them  for  a  possession  ;  they  shall  be  your  bond-men  forever  : 


85 


but  over  your  brethren,  the  cMldren  of  Israel,  ye  shaU  not  rule  one  over 
another  with  rigor." 

Here  is  perpetual  slavery  for  a  portion  of  the  human  race.   It 
is  sometimes  said  that  this  servitude  is  only  voluntary.    Suppose 
it  was.     Had  persons  any  right  to  sell  themselves  as  slaves  for 
life  ?     If  not,  how  much  less  to  sell  their  unborn  posterity  "  for- 
ever," into  hopeless,  irremediable  bondage !     But  the  language 
of  the  passage  plainly  indicates  the  bondage  to  be  involuntary  on 
the  part  of  the  bound,  —  "  of  them  shall  ye  buy,"  "  to  inherit  them 
for  a  possession,"  &c.     The  slavery,  therefore,  was  involuntary, 
being  hereditary  and  perpetual.     None  but  Hebrew  servants  — 
"  hired  servants  "  —  went  free  at  the  jubilee.     The  "  bond-men 
and  inrnd-maids"  remained  in  bondage  '* forever."    The  distinc- 
tion  here  made  between  Hebrew  servants  and  bond-men  and 
bond-women  is  clear  and  unequivocal ;   but  the    right  of    the 
master  over  the  body  —  the  person  of  his  slave  —  over  his  life, 
is  clearly  expressed  in  the  following  passage.  Exodus  21 :  20, 21, 

"  20.  And  if  a  man  smite  his  servant,  or  his  maid,  with  a  rod,  and  he 
die  under  his  hand  ;  he  shall  be  surely  punished. 

21.  Notwithstanding,  if  he  continue  a  day  or  two,  he  shall  not  be  punish- 
ed ;  for  he  is  his  money.'* 

Simply  because  his  slave  was  his  money,  the  monster  might 
whip  him  to  death,  only  provided  he  whipped  him  to  a  two  or 
three  days'  death — a  sort  of  living,  tormenting  death.  Yet  the 
Bible  sanctions  it.  I  say,  away  with  the  authority  of  a  book 
which  thus  give  countenance  to  such  crimes.  But  the  New 
Testament  sanctions  slavery.  In  five  passages,  at  least,  the 
relation  of  a  slave  to  his  master,  as  one  who  ought  to  "  obey  " 
that  master,  is  recognized.  Take  the  following  as  proof:  Ephe- 
sians  6 :  5, — 

**  5.  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters  according  to 
the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your  heart,  as  unto 
Christ." 

Also  Colossians  3 :  22, — 

«« 22.  Servants,  obey  in  all  things  your  masters  according  to  the  flesh  ; 

8 


til. 


t 


MMMMlMimiMII^I 


86 


not  witli  ej€-aerTice,  as  men  pleasera  ;  but  in  singleness  of  heart,  fearing 

God." 


M 


I 


r 


« 


In  these  passages  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  unequiYO- 
callj  and  clearly  recognized  by  Paul.  The  word  *'  master  "  hero 
is  from  the  Greek  word  "  despotes,"  signifying  absolute  despot. 
The  servant  is  absolute  subject  —  slave.  And  we  know  that 
Paul  was  addressing  himself  to  a  class  of  the  most  abject  slaves, — 
lioman  slaves, —  thaii  which  none  were  ever  more  abject.  All 
around  Jesus  and  his  disciples  triumphed  this  horrid  system  of 
lioman  slavery.  Yet  not  a  word  does  the  New  Testament  re- 
cord which  any  of  them  ©ver  uttered  against  it  as  a  wrong — as 
a  sin.  On  the  contrary,  Paul,  in  five  or  six  successive  epistles, 
recognized  the  relation  between  a  slave  and  his  master  as  a  just 
relation,  by  commanding  slaves  to  "  obey  their  masters  "  —  to  obey 
their  masters  **  in  all  things*'—  "to  be  subject  to  their  masters 
with  all  fear,"  •*  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  but,  also,  to 
the  froward."  He  tells  them  to  obey  even  bad  musters.  And 
we  all  know  what  horrid  commands  masters  often  give  to  their 
slaves.  In  one  place  Paul  commands  slaves  to  honor  their 
master  with  "  all  honor,"  "  lest  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine 
should  be  blasphemed."  It  is  blasphemous,  then,  for  a  slave  to 
refuse  to  "  count  his  master  worthy  of  all  honor."  Is  not  a 
slave,  by  such  teaching,  made  still  more  degraded  ?  Ask  —  com- 
mand a  female  slave  to  count  her  master,  who  is  prostituting  her 
body  and  soul  to  his  own  passions,  "  to  cmint  him  worthy  of  all 
kofmr,''  when  he  has  destroyed  her  womanhood,  crushed  her 
spirit,  and  robbed  her  of  all  a  woman  holds  most  sacred ! 

There  is  no  command  which  a  master  can  give  to  his  slave, 
but  Paul  comniiinds  slaves  to  obey,  and  that,  too,  in  spirit  us 
well  as  fact.  He  would  subject  the  soul  of  a  slave  to  the  same 
kind  of  servitude  —  bondage  —  as  his  body  is  already  under. 
This  is  horrid.  It  is  infidel  to  God,  who  made  man  free.  It  is 
destructive  of  all  the  interests  of  humanity  —  of  its  social,  its 
moral,  and  its  spiritual  destiny.  I  brand  these  teachings  of  Paul 
thus,  and  hold  him  accountable  at  the  bar  of  Universal  Justice, 


87 


for  this  detestable  teaching.     Can  it  be  that  Paul  did  not  know 
that  slavery  was  wrong  ?    If  he  did  not,  he  was  entirely  unfit  to 
teach  even  the  North  American  Indians.     If  he  did  know  it  to 
be  wrong  then  he  was  a  consummate  hypocrite,  or  a  paltry  time- 
server ;  for  .f  slaves  should  follow  his  teaching  slavery  would  be 
etc  nal.     It  is  sometimes  said  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples  con- 
tented themselves  with  teaching  doctrines  which  would  slowly 
•    undermine  slavery,  instead  of  denouncing   it  in  form  and  word 
But  this  IS  not  the  fact ;  for  here,  in  these  passages  above  quoted, 
slavery  is  explicitly  recognized,  and  the  relation  of  a  slave  to  his 
master  set  forth  as  a  relationof  subjection -of  obedience,  on  the 
part  of  the  slave,  and  authority  to  demand  and  compel  such  sub- 
jection  and  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  master.     Nothing  can 
be  plumer    And,  besides,  just  look  at  the  idea  advanced.    Jesus 
and  his  d.sciples  and  apostles  openly  countenancing  slavery -^ 
openly  recognizing  the  relation  ofmaster  and  slave,-and  covertly 
disseminating  principles  which  would  ultimately  undermine  it ' 
Expediency.     The  Infaimie,  Incarnale  God  (as  Christ  is  re^ 
garded  by  the  church)  practising  the  doctrine  of  expediency '    It 
18  also  said  that  Christianity  did  abolish  slavery  in  the  Eoman 
^.mp.n^  in  the  reigns  of  the  Antonies,  during  the  second  century. 
i^ut  this  IS  not  true.     Slavery  was  not  abolished  in  the  Eoman 
Empire  at  all  in  the  second  century,  nor  even  partially  until  the 
thirteenth  century.      (See  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  Vol  i 
page   2o.)     And   now,   to-day,   in  Aimvh^,  — most  Christian 
country,  dotted  all  over  with  churches  called  Christian,  —  three 
millions  and  a  half  of  slaves  load  the  air  with  their  groans 
while  from  thousands  of  pulpits  is  whined  out.  like  Paul    "  Ser- 
vants, obey  your  masters."     -  Obey  in  all  things  your  masters  » 
8.   The  Bible  favors  Conjugal  Despotism,  and,  bij  so  doing, 
degrades  woman. 

The  Bible  makes  the  husband  lord  and  master,  and  the  wife 
subject  and  slave.  It  gives  the  husband  unlimited  power  to  rule 
over  the  wife,  and  commands  the  wife  to  obey  her  husband.  It 
represents  God  as  saying  to  woman.  Gen.  3  :  16,— 

••  And  thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and  U  shall  rule  over  thee» 


i  I 


II 


88 


mi 


§ 


Agaio,  ie  1  Corintliiaiis  11 :  3,  8,  9, — 

«« a  For  the  man  ia  not  of  the  woman,  but  the  woman  of  the  man. 
a  Neither  was  the  man  created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman  for  the 


IBHi.li- 


fi' 


In  tbis  first  passage  the  husband  is  made  the  ruler.  In  the 
eecond  we  are  told  a  monstrous  lie,  namely,  that  the  man  was  not 
created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman  for  the  man.  Nature  says, 
man  and  woman  were  created  for  each  other.  But  Paul  followed 
the  old  Geoesaical  fable  of  creation.  He  had  a  low  estimate 
of  woman,  and  of  the  sacred  state  of  marriage,  as  is  perfectly 
evident  from  a  passage  in  one  of  his  epistles,  where  he  says :  "  It 
is  better  to  marry  than  to  burn."  His  only  idea  of  marriage 
here  seems  to  have  been  that  it  is  merely  a  convenience  for  the 
gratification  of  the  animal  passions, —  the  lowest  possible  object 
of  marriage.  No  wonder,  then,  that  he  should  talk  so  much 
mbout  the  subjection  of  woman,  while  he  regards  them  as  mere 
appendages  to  man,  machines  of  passions  of  the  grossest  order. 
fhis  idem  of  PauFs  is  still  further  illustrated  by  the  following 
passages.    Bphesians  5  :  22-25, — 

"  21  Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  own  husbands,  as  unto  the 

Iiord.. 

23.  For  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  head 
0f  the  church  ;  and  ho  is  the  savior  of  the  body. 

24.  Therefore,  as  the  church  is  subject  unto  Christ,  so  let  the  wives  be 
ta  flMir  own  husbands  in  everything. 

25.  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  church, 
•ad  gave  himself  for  it** 

It  will  be  i©en  that  the  subjection  of  the  woman  to  the  man  here 
commanded  is  perfect  and  entire,  " as  unto  the  Lord"  It  is 
true  that  he  tells  husbands  to  **love  their  wives;"  but  he  gives 
the  wife  no  guaranty  that  her  husband  will  love  her,  while  he 
does  give  the  husband  entire  mastery  over  his  wife.  If  he  had 
made  the  subjection  of  the  wife  contingent  upon  the  love  of  the 
husband,  it  would  have  taken  off  some  of  the  curse ;  but  even 
then  subjection  would  be  tyranny.    Love  knows  no  subjection, 


89 

but  exaltation  of  its  object.  What  and  whom  we  truly  love,  we 
exalt,  we  worship,  we  cherish.  If  a  husband  loved  his  wife  he 
would  scorn  the  idea  of  subjecting  her,  and  of  her  submission. 
Submission  is  the  counterpart  of  oppression.  Paul  knew  nothing 
of  pure  conjugal  love,  at  least  of  its  high  and  holy  nature  and 
power.     1  Timothy  2  :  11-14,— 

"11.  Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence  with  all  subjection. 

12.  But  I  suflFer  not  a  woman  to  teach,  nor  to  usurp  authority  over  the 
man,  but  to  be  in  silence. 

13.  For  Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve. 

14.  And  Adam  was  not  deceived,  but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in 
the  transgi'-ession. 

15.  Notwithstanding,  she  shall  be  saved  in  child-bearing,  if  they  con- 
tinue in  fiiith,  and  charity,  and  holmes,  and  sobriety." 

This  is  one  of  the  most  tyrannical,  the  most  unnatural,  the 
most  degrading  passages,  in  respect  to  women,  to  be  found  in  the 
whole  Bible.     "Silence,  with  all   subjection,"   is  the  state  in 
which  woman  must  abjectly  learn.     Her  noble  gift  of  speech 
must  not  be  used.     Her  superior  natural  aptitude  for  instructing 
and  unfolding  her  own  and  her  children's  souls  is  here  forbidden. 
And  the  reason  given  for  this  abject  degradation  and  submission 
of  woman  is,  "  that  Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve."     As 
good  a  reason  could  be  given  for  Adam's  submission  to  asses, 
"yor  tke^  ivere  first  formed,  then  Adam^     And  then  Paul 
goes  on  loading  women  with  the  crimes  of  the  world  —  as  the 
mother  of  sin.     It  is  horrid  to  contemplate  the  degradation  to 
Which  such  teaching,  if  obeyed,  as  it  often  is  in  Christendom, 
will    and  does  subject  woman  —  man's   only   earthly   guardian 
angel.     But  take  another  from  Paul.     It  is  a  climax.     Here  it 
is  from  iha  third  chapter  of  first  Peter  :  "  Likewise,  ye  wives,  be 
in  subjection  to  your  own  husbands ;"  and  then,  after  referring  to 
some  minor  points  continues, —    * 


ff<. 


'5.  For  after  this  manner  in  the  olden  time  the  holy  women  also,  who 
trusted  in  God,  adorned  themselves,  being  in  subjection  unto  their  own 
husbands: 

8* 


,J;j 
..iil 


m 


6.  Eten  m  Bunk  ohsyvd  Abraham,  calling  him  lord  :  whose  daughters 
yi»  are,  m  long  an  je  do  well,  and  are  not  afraid  with  any  amaiement." 


m 


m 


ill 


1 


m 


•*  Being  in  subjection  tn  their  own  husbands,  even  as  Sarah 
obeyed  Abraham,  calling  him  lord."  Let  me  ask  how  Sarah 
obeyed  her  lord.  Turn  to  Oen.  12.  When  Abraham  was 
going  down  to  Egypt,  with  Sarah,  he  feared  the  Egyptians  would 
fall  in  love  with  his  wife,  because  she  was  a  "fair  woman  to 
look  upon,"  and  kill  him  to  get  her ;  he  told  her  to  lie,  by  saying 
ehe  was  his  sister;  and  she  did  so.  Now,  of  every  woman  who 
reads  this  book,  let  me  ask,  are  you  anxious  to  become  the 
daughters  of  lying  Sarah,  who  lied  in  obedience  to  her  lying  and 
cowardly  husband  ?  Are  you  willing  to  become  the  mere  tools 
of  your  husbands,  as  is  commanded  in  those  passages  above 
quoted  ?  Are  you  willing  to  part  with  the  use  of  your  God- 
bestowed  instincts  of  self-sovereignty,  with  your  glorious  and 
eloquent  gifts  of  speech,  at  the  audacious  beck  of  Paul  7  If  so, 
I  pity  you.  Can  such  teachings  as  these  ever  elevate  woman  to 
her  true  sphere?  Never.  They  are  to-day  crushing  out  the 
pure  instincts  and  angel  natures  of  thousands,  even  in  our  own 
country. 

9.  Tke  BiMe  sa?tcthm  Pdygamy  and  CmwuMrmge^  or  the 
practice  of  having  many  wives  and  mistresses  in  addition.  Abra- 
liam  had  a  wife,  and  at  the  same  time  had  children  by  a  female 
slave.  And  the  Bible  nowhere  condemns  him  for  it,  but,  on  the 
contrary  declares,^ — 

•*  6.  Because  that  Abraham  obeyed  my  voice,  and  kept  my  charge,  my 
commandments,  mj  statutes,  and  my  laws." 

(See  Gen.  26.)  Jacob  had  two  wives,  whom  he  purchased,  and 
at  the  same  time  he  had  children  by  two  female  slaves;  and  yet 
is  not  condemned,  but  is  called  the  father  of  the  faithful. 

Solomon  had  «et?c7i  kuTtdred  wives  and  three  hundred  concu- 
bines; and  yet  he  is  declared  in  the  Bible  to  be  the  wisest  man 
that  ever  did,  or  ever  should  live. 


91 

In  2  Samuel  12 :  8,  God  is  represented  as  saying  to  David 
through  Nathan, — 

"  8.  And  I  gave  thee  thy  master's  house,  and  thy  master's  wives  into 
thy  bosom,  and  gave  thee  the  house  Israel  andof  Judah  :  and  if  that  had 
been  too  little,  I  would,  moreover,  have  given  unto  thee  such  and  such 
things." 

David  had  previously  bought  a  wife  of  Saul  —  his  daughter, 

Michal  — and  paid  for  her  with  four  hundred  foreskins  of  the 

Philistines.     And  then  God  is  represented,  in  the  above  passage, 

as  giving  David  all  his  father-in-law's,  Saul's  wives  "  into  his 

bosom."     But  David  was  not  content  with  this;  he  seduced  the 

wife  of  a  living  man,  and  Nathan  reproves  him  for  this,  but  not 

for  having  many  wives.     Indeed,  this  passage  makes  God  the 

panderer  to  David's  passions.     And  then  we  are  told,  in  1  Kings 
lo,— — 

«  5.  Because  David  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord, 
and  turned  not  aside  from  anything  that  he  commanded  Mm  all  the  days 
of  his  life,  save  only  in  the  matter  of  Uriah  the  Hittite." 

But  it  is  sometimes  said,  in  answer  to  this  charge  of  polygamy 
against  the  Bible,  that  Jesus  discountenanced  and  abolished  it, 
in  Matthew.  But  Jesus  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  speaks 
of  polygamy  at  all,  but  only  of  divorce.  And  woman  is  still 
further  degraded  by  being  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  chattel. 
She  was  bought,  in  Scripture  times,  by  God's  chosen  people. 
Marriage  was  held  up  as  a  bargain  and  sale. 

See  Gen.  34:  12;  29:  15-17;  1  Sam.  18:    25-27;  also, 
Hosea  3:2;  Deut.  21 :  10-14. 


I' 


1'  I 


|i^ 


CHAPTEE    X. 


i 


nil! 

ill!:)   .J 


fHB  BIBLE  TEACHES  FALSE  AND  DANGEROUS  DOCTRINES  ON 
MORALS,  TUEOLOGY  AND  BELIOION ;  AND  ON  YAIIIOUS  OTHER 
SUBJECTS. 

It  gives  us  bad  and  dangerous  teachiDss  on  the  relations 
of  parents  and  cbildien.     In  Deut.  21, — 

••  18.  If  a  man  have  a  stubborn  and  rebellious  son,  which  will  not 
ohej  the  voice  of  his  fither,  or  the  voice  of  his  mother,  and  that,  when 
they  have  chastened  him,  will  not  hearken  unto  them  : 

19.  Then  shall  his  father  and  his  motlier  lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring 
Hm  out  unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  and  unto  tlic  gat«  of  his  place  ; 

20.  And  they  shall  say  unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  This  our  son  is 
Btublsom  and  rebellious,  he  will  not  obey  our  voice;  he  is  a  glutton  and 
a  drunkard. 

21.  And  all  tlie  men  of  his  city  sliall  stone  him  with  stones,  that  he 
die;  so  shalt  thou  put  evil  away  from  aniong  you,  and  all  IsvMtl  shall 
Iiear  and  ;fear.''' 

This  is  a  command  to  parents  to  stone  their  stubborn  and 
rebellious  children  to  death.  Parents,  is  it  right  ?  Was  it 
ever  riglit  to  murder  children  because  thej  are  stubborn  and 
rebellious  ?  If  it  was  right  in  the  days  of  Moses,  is  it  not  right 
to-day,  and  forever  ?  Truth  and  falsehood,  right  and  wrong,  are 
eternal  distinctioiiSy  which  no  temporary  expedient  can  set  aside. 
There  is  no  intelligent  parent  who  can  for  one  moment  sanction 
the  principle  involved  in  this  passage.  None  but  a  savage  will 
rnj  it  is  just.  There  is  a  bitter  malignity  in  it,  worthy  only  of 
a  demon.  The  Bible  also  sanctions  the  punishment  of  children 
for  the  crimes  of  their  parents,  as  in  the  case  of  Achan,  already 
referred  to.  In  other  passages,  also,  the  Bible  gives  parents  the 
power  of  life  and  death  over  their  children.  (In  Gen.  21 :  14, 
27 :  29,  and,  also,  Exodus  21 :  15-17 ;  Lev.  20 :  9.)  The 
Bible  sanctions  the  law  of  primogeniture.     God  is  said  to  give 


93 


to  the  first-born  a  double  portion  of  the  estate.  The  first-born, 
also,  was  a  priest  of  the  whole  family,  and  ruled  the  younger 
children  by  virtue  of  having  been  the  first  born. 

The  Bible  contains  horrible  laws,  and  is  awfully  profane  in 
its  threats  of  capital  punishment.  Bead  the  twenty-second 
chapter  of  ]>euteronoray,  also  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Leviti- 
cus ;  and,  in  truth,  you  can  scarcely  go  amiss  of  these  horrible 
laws  anywhere  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  Bible  contains  bad 
morals  in  its  teachings  on  the  subject  of  usury.    See  Deut.  22,— 

"19.  Thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury  to  thy  brother;  usury  of  money, 
usury  of  victuals,  usury  of  anything  that  is  lent  upon  usury  : 

20.  Unto  a  stranger  thou  mayest  lend  money  upon  usury,  but  unto 
thy  brother  thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury;  that  the  Lord  thy  God  may 
bless  thee  in  all  that  thou  settest  thine  hand  to  in  the  land  whether  thou 
goest  to  possess  it" 

The  Jews  might  take  usury  of  strangers,  but  not  of  each 
other.    This  is  fine  morality,  indeed !    Of  the  same  piece  are  the 
Bible  teachings  on  thje  subject  of  bad  meat,  before  referred  to. 
Some  of  the  worst  teachings  on  the  subject  of  morals  may  be 
found  in  its  sanction  of  the  vices  and  crimes  of  the  old  patri- 
archs.    Take  the  history  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  found  in  Gene- 
sis, beginning  art  the  twenty-fifth  chapter.     The  first  instance  is 
in  the  case  of  the  pottage,  which  has  passed  into  a  proverb.     In 
this  case,  who  cannot  see  that  Esau  was  much  less  blamable 
than  Jacob  ?     Esau  was  tired,  and  hungry,  and  faint ;  and  Jacob 
takes  advantage  of  his  faintness  in  order  to  swindle  him  out  of 
his  birthright.     Esau  asks  his  brother  Jacob  to  give  him  some 
pottage,  for,  said  he,  « I  am  faint."     And  Jacob,  Jew-like,  is  in 
lor  a  bargain,  and  says,    "  Sell  me  this  day  thy  birthright." 
Instead  of  dealing  in  the  true  spirit  of  a  brother  with  Esau, 
and  as  all  true  brothers  would,  by  cheerfully  giving  him  to  eat, 
he,  well  knowing  that  a  starving  man  would  give  his  all  for 
something  to  eat,  thus  robs  his  own  brother  of  his  birthright. 
It  is  a  specimen  of  robbery  the  more  detestable  because  prac- 
tised upon  a  brother.    None  but  a  covetous  gambler  could  have 


I 


ll 


94 

uttered  that  foul  and  hiohI  unnatural  request:  "sell  me  this  bay 
THY  BiKTiiiiiuHT."     The  miim  spirit  of  robbery  soon  afterward 
again  nianifested  itself  in  Jacob,  by  both  lying  und  steuling. 
Isaac  sends  Esau  to  the  field  for  venison  to  make  savory  meat 
of,  promising  to  bless  him  for  so  doing.     But  Jacob's  mother 
overheare  Isaac,  and  calls  Jacob,  tells  him  all,  and  then  invents 
a  scheme  to  lie,  and  steal  away  Esau's  blessing.    Jacob  yields  to 
her  solicitations ;  she  kills  two  kids,  makes  savory  meat,  clothes 
Jacob  in  hair,  lest  his  father  should  find  him  out,  and  sends  hiui, 
with  a  foul  lie  in  his  teeth,  to  cheat  his  poor  blind  father,  and  to 
steal  Esau's  blessing.     The  scheme  is  successful,  Isaac  is  de- 
ceived, and  Esau  is  robbed  a  second  time.     But  the  history  of 
Jacob's  remarkable  piety  does  not  end  here.     We  find  him,  after 
a  time,  swindling  his  father-in-law,  Labau,  out  of  all  his  best 
sheep  and  cattle,  through  his  ring-streaked  and  speckled  rod 
policy;  which,  accordi.ig  to  Gen.  31 :  9,  was  God's  own  work  all 
of  it.     Not  a  word  does  the  Bible  utter  against  the  robberies  of 
Jacob,  but,  through  the  whole  of  it,  God  is  represented  as  stand- 
ing at  Jacob's  back  and  blessing  him.     Is  not  this  teaching  bad 
morals?    Are  not  such  morals  false  and  dangerous?     But  it 
may  be  said  that  Laban  was  perfidious  with  Jacob ;  that  he  de- 
ceived Jacob.    Suppose  he  did.    Is  that  any  reason  Jacob  should 
swindle  Laban  ?    Can  two  wrongs  create  one  right?    Are  men 
thus  to  practise  perfidy  for  perfidy,  swindling  for  swiudling,  and 
robbery  for  robbery?    But  Jacob's   treatment  of  Esau'' was, 
according  to  the  story  itself,  totally  unprovoked  by  Esau;  so 
that  no   palliation,   on   the  ground  of   retaliation,   is   at   all 
admissible. 

But,  again,  the  Bible  teaches  false  and  dangerous  doctrines 
on  the  subject  of  providential  or  foreiooking  labor.  Jesus  is 
represented,  in  Matthew,  as  forbidding  his  disciples  to  take  any 
thought  for  the  morrow.     See  Matthew  6 :  24-34.     He  says,— 

««  24.  No  man  can  serve  two  maeters  :  for  cither  he  will  hate  the  one 
and  loTc  tlie  other;  or  els©  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise  the  other. 

¥ott  cmuiot  aervi  God,  and  mammon. 


5I& 

25.  Therefore  I  say  unto  you.  Take  no  thought  for  your  life,  what  ye 
shall  eat,  or  what  ye  shall  drink;  nor  yet  for  your  body,  what  ye  shall 
put  on.     Is  not  the  lite  more  than  meat,  aud  the  body  than  raiment  ? 

26.  Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air;  for  they  sow  not,  neither  do  they  reap, 
nor  gather  into  baius;  yet  your  heavenly  Father  feedeth  them.  Are  ye 
not  much  better  than  they  7 

27.  Which  of  you  by  taking  thought  can  add  one  cubit  unto  his 
stature  ? 

28.  And  why  take  ye  thought  for  raiment?  Consider  the  lilies  of  the 
field  how  they  grow;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin; 

2'J.  And  yet  I  say  unto  you,  That  even  Solomon  in  all  his  glory  was 
not  arrayed  like  one  of  these. 

30.  Wlierelbre,  if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  field,  which  to-day  is, 
and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he  not  much  more  clothe  you, 
0  ye  of  little  faith? 

31.  Therefore  take  no  thought,  saying,  What  shall  we  eat?  or  What 
shall  we  drink?  or  Wherewithal  shall  we  be  clothed? 

32.  (For  after  all  these  things  do  the  Gentiles  seek;)  for  your  heavenly 
Father  knoweth  that  ye  have  need  of  all  these  things. 

33.  But  seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteousness,  and 
all  these  things  sliall  be  added  unto  you. 

84.  Take  therefore  no  thought  for  the  morrow;  for  the  morrow  shall 
teke  thought  for  the  things  of  itself.  Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil 
thereof." 

Now,  reader,  what  do  you  understand  by  this  passage  ?    Does 
it  mean  what  it  says,  or  does  it  mean  something  else  ?     It  says, 
"  Take  no  thought  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  drink,  or  wear."     Now. 
does  it  mean  m  thought  ?     If  it  don't  mean  so,  why  does  it  say 
so  ?    And  if  it  does  not  mean  so,  how  are  we  to  ascertain  what 
it  does   mean?     Some  may   say,   Jesus   only   meant   anxious 
thought;   he  only  meant  that  we  should  not  be  over-a?ixims 
about  temporal  things.     If  he  meant  this,  why  did  he  not  s?y 
this?     Could  he  not  have  said,  take  no  over-anxious  tlmight,  as 
easily  as  he  said  what  is  written  in  the  passage,  and  thus  leave 
his  meaning  plain,  so  plain  that  it  should  need  no  interpretation, 
or  supposititious  explanations?     But  the  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  passage  is  found  in  itself.     It  says,  "  take  no  thought,"  &c., 
and  then  points  to  the  birds,  who  neither  •'  sow  nor  gather  into 
barns,"  and  the  lilies  of  the  field,  which  « toil  not,  neither  spin," 


96 

as  examples  to  be  followed ;  and  adds  to  the  example  of  the 
birds,  "  yet  your  heavenly  Father  feedeth  them ;  are  ye  not 
much  better  than  they?"  And  then  asks  the  question,  "Which 
of  you  by  taking  thou-^'ht  can  add  one  cubit  unto  his  stature?  " 

Aa  if  it  were  as  impossible  to  succeed  in  providential  or  fore- 
lookiig  labor,  as  it  would  be  to  add  twenty-two  inches  to  a  per- 
Bon's  Iieighfc  simply  by  a  thought.     The  thought  and  comparison 
mre  supremely  ludicrous.    What  husbandman  but  would  laugh  at 
such  a  doctrine,  and  especially  at  the  ridiculous  parallel  introduced 
to  enforce  it,  if  he  should  find  it  for  the  first  time  in  the  Ohio 
Cultivator  or  the  Genesee  Farmer  ?  And,  still  further,  the  passage 
attenpta  to  enforce  the  doctrine,  by  attempting  to  reduce  intelli- 
gent, human,  voluntary,  reafeoning  beings  to  the  level  of  vege- 
tables, in  all  respects  relating  to  care  for  our  bodies,  and  their 
clothes.    The  idea  is  just  this :     We  must  take  no  thought  or 
care  about  what  we  shall  put  on,  because  God  clothes  the  lilies 
('•which  take  no  thought")  in  beautiful  garments,  on  the  ground 
that  we  are  better  than  they ;  and  if  God  takes  so  much  care  of 
them,  will  he  not  clothe  us?    Undoubtedly  God,   or  rather 
Nature,  would  clothe  us,  if  we  did  not  clothe  ourselves,  and 
in  garments  like  those  of  the  root-diggers  of  Central  America, 
or  of  the  cannibals  ^m  hair.     Beautiful  garments  for  civilized 
people,  truly !  Thus  the  examples  quoted  prove  conclusively  that 
Jesus  meant  "  no  thought."     But  will  any  sane  mind  follow 
such  teachings  ?    If  followed,  it  would  soon  reduce  tho  world  to 
barbarism.     Suppose  farmers  should  follow  it,  how  long  before 
the  most  advanced  nations  would  become  extinct,  or  at  least 
become  mere  savages  and  banditti  ?    They  would  soon  starve  to 
death,  for  uncultivated  Nature  could  not  furnish  them  with  food 
sufficient  for  their  sustenance.     All  science,  philosophy,  art,  and 
commeree,  would  be  extinguished  forever. 

The  Bible  teaches  false  and  dangerous  doctrine  on  the  subject 
of  intemperance.  It  holds  up  men  guilty  of  drunkenness  as 
God's  especial  favorites.  For  proof  of  this,  read  the  stories  of 
Noah  and  Lot.  Noah  became  so  drunk  that  he  did  not  know 
whether  he  was  clothed  or  naked ;  and  Lot  became  so  drunk  that 


97 

more.      A  poor,  heavy-hea.  ted  man  is  not  likelv  to  for  J/ k 
povertj.  in  drinking  until  he  gets  ^u^.  S^Z^ ,^^1^1 

ert''tY'^J!'P'  ^'"  ""  '""finable  curses  on  the  person,  and 
even  on  the  chUdren  and  wife,  of  some  one  whom  he  fancTe  has 
injured  h.m.  The  one  hundred  and  ninth  Psalm  is  »  l.T  ! 
si^eimen  of  David's  dead.,  revengeful  s^tararit-"" 

hali   ^'  ""■"  "  "'"^"^  ""^  °™^  '^^  •««»  '«t  Satan  stand  at  his  right 

Jo  JsL"  ''  *""  '^ •""'^^'  '^*  "^  "^  "-<•«--''»;  -1  let  his  prayer 
8.  Let  his  days  bo  few;  and  let  another  take  Ms  office. 

11.  Let  the  extortioner  oatcli  all  thif  li*.  i.«fi,.       i  i  ^  xi 
spoil  Ms  labor.  ^'  ^^*^'  ^^^  ^«*  **»«  strangers 

41  wiu  L:rohX:  -^^^-^  --^ '"-'  -'*••-  '^* «--  ^ 

Iet"ot^relin  '^f''  f,'^!'^'*'"'"  "^  remembered  with  tho  Lord;  and 
lec  not  the  sm  of  his  mother  be  blotted  out. 

15.  Let  them  be  before  the  Lord  contini,nii„  «  .*  v 
memo.7  of  them  from  the  earth.        """*"""'"y'  «'"*  "o  "«?  «<•*  «« the 

10.  Because  that  he  remembered  not  to  show  mercy,  but  nersec„t«l 
the  poor  and  needy  man.  that  he  might  even  aby  the  b™k«l  i^C^!?" 

David  eomplains,  in  the  outset,  of  his  enemies,  recounts  his 
wrongs  by  them  and  offers  up  this  petition  to  his  God.  The 
spmt  confamed  ,n  this  prayer  is  worthy  of  a  demon. 

Ihe  consequences  of  such  teachings  are  too  obvious  to  need 
fiirther  comment.  x\o  human  inge.mity  can  make  this  passa-^ 
teach  any  other  doctrine  than  this.    Such  fanaticisms  were  com- 

«7 


Ho 

inon  in  tlie  days  of  Jeais.  Jesus  himself  belonged  to  a  sect— 
the  Essenes  —  one  class  of  which  were  the  Therapeute,  who 
taught  such  doctrines,  and  who  were  in  the  habit  of  shutting 
themselTes  up  in  caves  apart  Irom  the  rest  of  mankind,  in 
order  to  carry  out  these  unnatural  doctrines. 

Again,  the  Bible  teaches  a  false  and  dangerous  doctrine  when 
it  teaches  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  for  sin;  and  especially 
when  it  teaches  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  for  sin  through  the 
vicarious  atonement  of  Jesus.  That  it  does  sanction  and  teach 
the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement  I  have  before  proved,  and 
of  salvation  from  sin's  effecte  through  that  atonement.  I  now, 
therefore,  proceed  to  examine  more  in  detail  this  idea  of  forgive- 
ness for  sin. 

First;  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement  is  a  violation 
and  subversion  of  the  foundations  of  Infinite  Justice,  Love  and 
Wisdom.  It  is  destructive  of  the  most  essential  elements  and 
attributes  of  Divinity.  It  makes  all  divine  law  only  foolish 
caprice,  and  distorts  the  radiant  attributes  of  divine  justice  and 
love  into  the  gross  passion  of  revenge. 

Let  us  examine  this  subject  closely  and  critically.  I  have 
shown  that  "  propitiation,"  as  used  in  Kom.  3  :  25,  means 
"atoning  sacrifice,"  and  that  " atone'*  means  "expiation  of  sin 
by  the  obedience  and  personal  sufferings  of  Christ."  Now, 
expiation,  according  to  Webster,  means  primarily  in  all  lan- 
guages, "to  appease;  to  allay  resentment,"  "Expiation"— 
the  act  of  atoning  for  crimes ;  "  and,  among  Christians,  cxpmiion 
for  the  sins  of  men  is  considered  as  made  only  by  the  obedience 
and  sufferings  of  Christ"  Here,  then,  is  the  whole  subject 
before  us.  On  it,  I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  rests  the  central 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  churches  and  creeds ;  and,  as  I  have 
■hown,  it  is  a  central  doctrine  of  the  Bible  — of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. On  its  truth  rests  the  whole  superstructure  of  modem 
theology.  Take  it  out  of  the  New  Testament,  and  out  of  church 
creeds^  and  they  would  immediately  dissolve  and  disappear.  It 
is  a  very  important  doctrine,  then,  and  so  needs  dose  investiga- 
tion.   If  true,  it  is  necessary  to  know  it;  but,  if  false,  it  is  one 


lilf 
of  ae  most  dangerous,  unholy,  immoral  and  destructive  doctrines 

its^ect^  upon  mind-^upon  .CJ^^Z  IS^ ^  "' 
slllZTj  f  i,"  f  ''*°°'""^"''  "'«*'  -  -  -<"="-«  and 

ot  i).v.n,ty- Justice.  Justice  has  its  foundation  in  God  as 
the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  The  law  of  justice  is  thelw  of 
cause  and  effect.     On  its  immntoK:!,-*    u  ,     , 

world,      Th»  7     V  mmntability  hangs  the  destiny  of  all 

worlds.     The  stars  keep  their  appointed  courses  in  virtue  of  ite 

in:'  T:t'  f •^'""'^ '-'''  ^o,.jTLi:t 
ztz,  af;  :tChtf^:;  ttr  t  ''-'-'  *- 

'a  -^  ^°"   '^  nature,  by  virtue  of  ifs 

influence     Destroy  it,  and  the  universe  is  dislolved,  and  goj 

lawnxfJu8t.ce  _  of  cause  and  effect.  An  effect  is  just,  when  it 
proceeds  legitimately  from  an  adequate  cause.  That  i^ U  L 
just  as  an  effect;    .t  stands  in  a  true  or  natural  relation  to  ite 

«n„l  w  T  •  ,-  **"^'  ^o*!  between  God's  soul  and  man's 
Boul  By  physical  sm  we  outrage  and  prevent  physical  har- 
mony.  as  a  natural,  necessary  and  inevitable  result.  By  mental 
and  spiritual  sin  we  prevent  spiritual  harmony 

If  we  are  spiritual  individualities,  if  we  possess  souls  (and  I 
«,ntend  we  do  ,  then  those  souls  must  be  organisms,  and  there- 

ZJZ  T'  T"*""'  '"■«*'^''  '^^^'  J-^*  ^«  the  body  is 

if  ou    so  r?T  T"'  'T  '"  °"'^  *^  '"°<^-  °f  *e  action 
of  our  spiritual  natures.     For  instance,  it  is  not  the  eye- the 

physical  eye -which  sees;  for,  remove  the  soul,  and  though  the 

organism  of  the  eye  still  remain  as  perfect  as  before  death,  yet 

m,  sight  takes  place.     The  conscious  power,  which  sees  through 

the  eyo  as  a  wmdow,  is  gone,  and  with  it  vision  is  fled.    So  with 

all  our  external  senses.    Therefore,  the  body  derives  all  its 


100 


1^ 

ll 


power  from  the  soul, —  from  the  epiritual  oature, —  and  henoe 
the  laws  of  the  body  tie  only  the  modes  of  the  act  ion  of  the  soul, 
tad,  ooEseqnently,  the  laws  of  man's  spiritual  nature  are  as 
inflexible  as  the  so-called  laws  of  his  physical  nature.  Now, 
man'g  religious  and  moral  nature  is  the  sum  of  his  spiritual  being. 
and,  therefore,  must  be  governed  by  inflexible,  immutable  laws. 
If,  therefore,  man's  physical  laws  are  only  the  outward  manifesta- 
tion of  tli«  modes  of  action  of  the  soul,  then,  as  a  necessary 
result,  every  spiritual  or  moral  sin  is  always  and  everywhere 
invariably  and  inevitably  attended  by  adequate  eflects,  —  cfiects 
deleterious,  and  which  are  determined  precisely  by  the  nature 
ind  extent  of  the  sin  which  caused  them.  For,  outrage  any 
organic  law  of  physical  life,  and  pain  or  disease  and  iU-health 
will  inevitably  follow  snch  outrage ;  as,  for  instance,  put  your 
hand  in  a  flame  of  fire,  and  hold  it  there  a  sufficient  time,  and  all 
its  beautiful  parts  and  functions  will  be  destroyed,  and  no  power 
can  restore  it.  All  the  sacrificei  of  Paganism,  of  Judaism,  and 
of  Christianity  combined,  cannot  prevent  the  natural  results  of 
the  relation  which  the  flame,  as  a  cause,  sustains  to  the  hand  as 
its  Tictim,  and  to  its  destruction  as  an  effect.  And  no  amount  of 
praying  can  restore  the  lost  hand.  No  "  atonement "  will  prove 
eflectual  here.  Sacrifice  the  bodies  of  never  so  many  goats,  or 
bulls,  or  firstlings  of  the  flock,  or  noble  reformers  like  Jesus  of 
Naiareth,  it  is  all  in  vain.  Immutability  is  stamped  upon  the 
whole  constitution  and  course  of  things,  by  its  great  soul,  and  no 
scheme  of  mythological  theology  can  interpose  any  effectual 
barrier  to  the  constant  operation  of  the  great  law  of  Justice  — 
cause  mnd  effect.  If  Divinity  is  visible  anywhere,  it  is  in  the 
immutability  of  cmise  and  effect.  I  regard  this  law  as  an  un- 
mistakable revelation  of  the  Divine  Will  and  Wisdom. 

No  sane  mind  will  deny  these  positions.  And  now  we  have 
a  foundation,  laid  by  God,  on  which  to  stand  while  we  examine 
the  doctrine  of  the  "  Vicarious  Atonement,"  which  teaches,  that, 
for  the  obedience  and  personal  sufferings  of  Jesus,  called  Christ, 
man's  sins  may  be  forgiven,  and  man  thus  saved  from  their 
natural  and  legitimate  effects.    At  first  sight,  it  is  evident  that 


101 

^:J7:J    ^"°"'  '  f  '"^  '^''^''  '^  g-^«  °f  ^^^Btenfe, 
inorganic  or  organic,  can  be  brought  forward  to  its  support    AU 

Nature  gt,es  thu  doctrine^  in  its  fa.e^  the  lie      S      G^t 
of  ligh  ,  turnmg  all  ways  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life  to 

TplIT'  st:  '^  r''  "^  *°  ^"^  '^^"S's  end  and  aim  ^ 

nappmess.     bhe  is  ever  true  to  her  missinn      a^a    u 

pains  but  to  bless.  ^°**  '*'*  °«^«' 

But  this  doctrine  of  "atonement"  teaches  us  that  Divine 
Justice  accepts  an  innocent  person  as  a  blon^!  ^f'^""^ 
exniafp  tK»  o.v»  „  j      •  »  ^     °"   "®  *  Dioodj  sacrifice,  to 

expiate  he  s.ns  and  cnmes  of  a  guilty  race,  and  to  reconcile  God 
to  man,  to  assuage  the  divine  wrath.  Accordingly,  all  Christians 
wmd  up  their  prayers  with  "  Lord,  save  us,  ffr  Christ's  sake  " 
Thcologiai.  often  tell  us  that  aU  deserve  damnation,  and  ntSr 
prayers  acknowledge  that  «%_  especial  snbiJ!  7 
tjey  are-ought  to  be  in  hculithB^^ltaSrte    Ej 

death.  But.  let  me  ask  Is  GoZ.h  m  ^  '  '"^'""^^  ''""* 
pleased  to  ^ve  ^111^:^;!!  T  ''  °^^  '"°'"'''  "'  *"  ^' 
Miest,    nf  /?!      f    ^  "'   ^"'"""^  "  ^"^   'hireling  high 

priests,  of  (blasphemous  assumption!)   His  own  chosen  peopfe 

the   doctrine.     I  well  know  what  are  the  miserable   nil     • 
»ade  to  this  objection  by  priests  and  2:^::''^^^^ 
hat  Jesus  voluntari^  offered  himself  as  a  propitiation^!   the 

ot  a  God  that  could  accept  the  sacrifice?    None  but  a  God  of 

ove  The  rnchlr  """    °>  '"''"«"'*''  ''''^'''''  "-*"'« 

could  tlT      T    ^"^"!  "^"''*  "^  "^""'"S  eo^''  ^^i  bulls,- 
could  accept  such  a  sacrifice. 

of  r'V!l"''r  ''  *'?  ^'''""'  '^^  ^"^^""g^  ^^^  o^el  death 
of  the  gentle  Je^us.  and  the  sin  of  Eve's  eating  an  apple  four 


Ij 


thoimiid  jears  before  ?    Or  what  relation  is  there  between  tli© 
iios  of  the  whole  world,  and  his  sufferings  and  death  ?    We  are 
taught  in  the  Bible,  as  I  hafe  shown,  that  the  sins  of  the  world 
aiajbe,  or  rather  mre,  expiated  bj  Jesus*  personal  sufferings  and 
crucifixion.     Now,  let  me  ask,  by  what  attribute  of  DiTinily.  or 
bj  what  law  of  Justice,  or  by  what  principle  of  Nature,  can  si.cli 
a  sentiineiit  find  support  ?    It  is  clearly  a  gnituitous  my  tliulogicui 
MBUinption,  without  a  single  jot  of  justice.    The  fcins  of  ihe 
whole  race  forgiven  —  expiated  —  blotted  out  in  the  blood  of  a 
murdered  reformer ! !     It  it  awful    And  then  to  be  told  by  the 
Bible  and  the  creeds  that  this  same  Jesus  is  God  himself —  tlio 
«  ¥ery  and  eternal  Father,  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,"  makes  Gvd  bifth  a  liar  a?id  a  suicide  ;  for  the 
Bible  tells  us  that  God  said  to  Adam  and  Eve,  "  in  the  day  that 
thou  eatest  thereof,  ik&u — not  I  —  shalt  surely  die ;"  and  again,  in 
mother  passage:  "The  soul  that  sinueth,  ii  —  not  God  —  shall 
mirely  die."     But  the  doctrine  under  consideration  perfectly 
contradicts  and  nullifies  both  these  passages,  and  then  teaches  us 
that  God  himself,  instead  of  punishing  guilty  man.  incariia(e.<4 
himself  in  flesh,  on  purpose  to  be  hated,  despised,  persecuted  and 
murdered,  im  order  to  save  man  from  the  divine  wrath,  arid  so 
prove  God  a  liar.     God  tells  man  he  shall  die  if  he  siii ;  Imt, 
instead  of  executing  His  threat,  commits  suicide  —  deliberate, 
predetermined  suicide.     Now,  I  defy  any  theologian,  who  accepts 
this  doctrine,  to  escape  this  point.     But  we  are  told  that  it  is 
through  faith  in  Jesus'  sufferings  and  death,  that  we  are  saved. 
Fmik  in  a  hjint;  tmd  suicidal  God  !  !  —  (according  to  this  theory). 
Who  but  a  demon  can  have  faith  in  such  an  insane  and  deriion 
God  ?    Mo  supposititious,  speculations  can  make  this  theory  other 
than  what  I  have  here  set  it  forth.     This  doctrine  contains  the 
idea  of  the  forgiveness  for  sins,  through  the  blood,  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  righteousness,  of  Jesus.     It  is  the  doctrine  of  imputed 
rightaousness.    Now  let  me  ask,  what  natural  relation  has  the 
blood  or  righteousness  of  Jesus  to  a  man's  sins  actually  commit- 
ted  I    Can  that  blood  wash  out  those  sins?    No.     They  are 
iilready  eternal  facts  in  the  life,  in  the  memory,  and  on  the  state 


108 


of  the  man's  soul.     As  causes,  those  sins  produce  their  natural 
and  mevitable  effects,  and  nothing  can  unmake  them.     Man  may 
outgrow  them  by  a  life  of  after  goodness,  but  their  effects  have 
been  wrought  upon  him,  and  he  has  felt  them,  and  so,  Omnipo- 
tenoe  itself  cannot  blot  them  out.     God  cannot  iftsmoy  a  fact 
God  canmt  unmake  the  law  of  cause  and  effect;  for,  should  he' 
make  an  effort,  he  would  only  thereby  acknowledge  its  authority. 
^or  his  effort  -  his  action  ^  would  simply  indicate  something  to 
be  done,  and  therefore  some  method  or  means  of  doing  it  •  and 
hence  would  be  a  prima  fa^ia  acknowledgment  that  an  effect, 
VIZ.,  the  destruction  of  cause  and  effect,  was  to  be  accomplished 
or  produced  by  his  action,  or  effort,  which  action  or  effort  is  the 
-ca^cse-  of  the  desired  effect.  '  So,  therefore,  as  God  cannot  de- 
stroy  the  "  law  of  cause  and  effect,"  he  cannot  forgive  sin  he  can- 
not  blot  out  sin's  effects  through  the  blood  or  righteousness  of 
Jesus.     An  example  of  goodness  may  inspire  us  to  goodness,  but 
no   murder  can  expiate  a  sin.     Can  two  wrongs  produce  one 
rigbt?     It  not,  how  can  the  death  and  personal  sufferin<rs  of 
Jesus  expiate  sin?     But  what  is  the  real  relation  of  Jesus' 
crucifixiou   to   the   world?    How   should   we  interpret  it?^   I 
answer,   it   interprets   itself.      He   was   crucified   for   teaching 
doctrines  which  were  heretical  to  those  which  God^s  own  chosm 
pneslhfxd  (I  mean  the  Bible  God)  had  been  taught  to  rcntrd 
as  divme  and  infallible,  and  that,  too.  by  the  whole  Old  T(°sla. 
ment ;  and  was  crucified  by  those  very  priests  who,  according 
t^  the  Old  Testament,  were  the  God-appointed  expounders  of  his 
word.     They  hated  Jesus  because  he  nullified  the  principles  of 
the  old  law,  by  substituting  opposite  ones  in  their  stead,  and  for 
expressly  doing  away  with  some  of  the  most  cherished  do.rmas 
ot  Judaistn;  and,  so  deep  and  deadly  is  their  hatred,  thatlhey 
murder  him  who  uttered  them.     And  jet,  if  this  doctrine  of 
"  atonement  "  be  true,  these  hireling  and  murderous  priests  were 
the  greatest  benefactors  of  the  race,  for  they  were  the  principal 
agents  of  perfecting  and  executing  a  scheme  of  salvation  most 
stupendous,  in  which  the  murder  of  an  incarnate  God  constitutes 
ikQ  crowning  act  in  the  great  plan.     Glorious  Priests  I!  blessed 


(I 


104 


Benefmtors  of  the  worM  !!    Mdy  was  your  mission  and  faith' 

fiMy  executed!  May  the  songs  of  the  redeemed  in  heaven 
eternally  chant  your  praise  !  May  jour  names  dwell  like  honey 
on  the  pious  lips  of  all  Christians  for  whose  eternal  salvation 
you  crucified  Deiiy.  I  had  nearly  forgotten  Judas.  But  I 
must  pay  him  a  tribute  likewise.  If  this  doctrine  be  true, 
Ju,Jl  ^eat  Urray.,  ought  to  have  the  highest  seat  in  the 
kingdom  of  dory.  Judas !  —  thou  chosen  of  God  for  the  comple- 
tiof  of  the  stjeodous  p.au  of  salvation,  in  <»»pany  with  thy 
illustrious  brothers,  the  high  priests  —  great  is  thy  merit. 
May  pious  souls  venerate  thee  for  thy  mission's  sake ;  for,  with  a 
J.  i  e.b.e.  of  thy  glorious  deed,  didst  thou  serve  the  race. 
by  delivering  up  unto  thy  God-appointed  brothers,  the  high  and 
holy  priests,  an  incariwie  God,  and  for  this  hast  received  only 
lliirty  pieces  of  Bilver,  and  the  curses  of  all  Christendom !  Thou 
oughiesi  to  have  received  a  pension  for  life,  aid  a  vicegereficy  i-u 
Heaven  ;  for,  but  for  thy  great  work,  God  had  imt  been  slaiii,  and 
so  the  world  had  not  been  saved.  Such  is  the  homage  Christians 
ought  to  pay  to  Judas  and  the  high  priests,  as  principal  agents 
in  this  "great  plan  of  rcdeuiptiou." 

Reader,  I  am  not  speaking  mere  irony.  I  would  do  all  this, 
ay,  more,  if  I  could  be  made  to  believe  this  doctrine  of  atone^ 
nicnt ;  I  would  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Palestine,  and,  on  the  spot 
where  Judas  " hung  himself,"  would  worship  his  soul  aud  deed; 
and,  could  I  get  it,  I  would  keep  as  a  relic  the  very  rope  that 
Itad  the  sanctity  of  embracing  the  holy  mck  of  God's  own  chosen 
principal  agent  —  Judas,  the  Great  Betrayer  !  I  would  protest 
mgainst  the  spirit  of  all  Christendom,  which  condemns  both  the 
high  priests  and  Judas ;  for,  if  this  "  plan  of  redemption  "  be 
holy  and  God-ordained  (and  all  Christians  profess  to  believe  it), 
and  if  God  is  holy  and  good,  of  course  he  would  not  use  evil 
means  in  its  completion.  But,  as  he  did  use  the  high  priests 
and  the  Ctreat  Betrayer,  Jadas,  in  its  completion,  therefore  they 
are  holy,  and  just,  and  good.  No  other  conclusion  is  possible ; 
for  it  is  a  **  great  plan,"  according  to  theology ;  and,  if  a  plan, 
must  bate  been  embraced  in  all  its  details,  before  its  execution, 


105 


in  the  conception  of  God ;  and  therefore  the  part  which  the  priests 
and  Judas  played  must  have  been  predetermined  by  God ;  and, 
therefore,  Judas  and  his  co-workers  ought  not  to  be  condemned, 
but  worshipped.      But  the  very  fact  that  these  prominent  agents 
of  God  are  universally  detested,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  the 
work  which  they  performed  is  equally  detestable  also.     It  is,  in 
fact,   the  detestable  nature,  the  nefarious  effect  of  their  work 
which  brings  universal  condemnation  upon  them.     If  Judas  had 
betrayed  Jesus  to  a  beautiful  supper  at  a  pious  friend's  house,  or 
to  a  seat  in  the  synagogue  or  the  sanhedrim,  as  one  whose  words 
were  wise,  Christians  would  bless,  instead  of  hating  and  cursing 
him.     But,  how  much  more  ought  they  to  bless  him  because  he 
betrayed  Jesus  to  crucifixion  in  order  to  save  the  whole  world 
from  death  !     And  yet  it  is  the  fate  of  Jesus,  as  the  result  of 
Judas'  betrayal,  that  damns  Judas,  while,  by  the  very  doctrine 
under  discussion,  this  very  fate  of  Jesus  is  the  grand  result 
sought  by  God,  and  aimed  at  in  this  "great  plan  of  redemption,*' 
I  repeat  it,  it  is  the  unnatural,  the  monstrous,  the  criminal,  the 
bloody,  murderous  effect  or  end  of  their  work,  which  damns 
Judas  and  the  priests ;  and  yet  this  very  end  is  God-ordained, 
and  these  persons  are  only  God-predetermined,  forechosen  agents 
in  the  accomplishment  of  this  very  effect. 

Christians  damn  the  unconscious  agents  of  God  for  executing 
his  plan,  and  bless  God,  the  great  designer,  for  its  effects.     Now, 
by  what  rule  shall  we  curse  agents  who  perform  their  part,  and 
without  whose  performance  the  plan  fails,  while  we  exculpate  the 
great  planner  himself,  who  got  up  the  plan,  and  in  whose  hand 
these  agents  are  only  tools  manufactured  by  the  great  designer 
himself  for  this  very  end  ?     If  the  conception  of  killing  God  be 
holy,  the  killing  of  him  must  be  equally  holy  also.   If  it  be  neces- 
sary to  crucify  God,  to  save  man,  it  is  equally  necessary  that 
somebody  should  do  it ;    and  if  God  got  up  the  scheme,  and 
chose  his  own  executioners,  —  made  them,  in  fact,  — who  is  to 
blame  but  himself?    The  doctrine  involved  in  this  plan  of  salva- 
tion damnation  is,  "the  end  justifies  the  means,"  which  is 
Jesuitical  enough  for  any  monk  of  the  dark  ages. 


i 


106 


107 


AbcI  now,  reader,  wliat  must  be  the  influence  of  sucli  i  doe- 
trine  oil  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men?    Why,  just  this:  that  if 

the  J  believe  they  can  be  forgiven  for  sin  on  the  righteousness 
and  through  the  blood  of  Jesus,  at  any  time,  they  will  continue 
sinning  just  so  long  as  their  passions  and  perverted  appetites  are 
stronger  than  their  pritwipies.  They  will,  therefore,  be  alter- 
nately sinning  and  repenting,  and  repenting  and  sinning  again. 
This  is  the  personal  history  of  ninety-nine  Christians  in  every 
hundred.  Chrisiian  reader ^  you  know  it  is.  And  is  not  this, 
therefore,  a  dangerous  doctrine  1  So  long  as  a  few  prayers  and 
tears,  and  a  little  professed  faith  in  Jesus  as  an  all-sufficient 
Saviour,  are  believed  to  be  capable  of  blotting  out  men's  sins, 
80  long  will  they  sin.  The  horrid  effects  of  this  doctrine  are 
ollen  demonstrated  in  the  criminal  on  the  gallows.  A  man  com- 
mits murder  on  a  fellow-man  who  is  not  a  believer  in  popular 
Christianity.  The  murderer  is  caught,  sentenced,  and  remanded 
to  prison  to  await  his  execution.  During  the  interim  he  is 
blessed  with  a  priest  and  a  Bible.  The  priest  pictures  before 
his  imagination  the  awfulness  of  his  crime,  and  eternal  damna- 
tion as  his  doom,  *•  ufdess  he  repent  and  believe  in  Jestf^,  and 
ikm  be  saved."  He  knows  his  crime  is  great,  feels  guilty,  be- 
comes frightened,  ** repents^  believes ^  «  baptized"  and  —  and 
what  next  ?  Why,  he  is  swung  off  into  heaven,  into  glory  with 
hdy  angels  ;  while  his  poor  victim,  whom  he  gave  no  chance  of 
repentance,  hut  sent  straight  to  hell,  is 


i< 


Groaning  in  eternal  torment " 


The  murderer,  as  is  almost  universally  the  case,  after  closing  a 
life  of  licentiousness  with  murder,  is  shouting  **  glory  "  in  heaven; 
while  his  victim,  who  led  a  good,  moral,  upright  and  honest  life, 
is  wailing  in  hell !  Such  is  the  horrid  influence  of  this  doctrine 
upon  the  morals  of  this  life,  and  the  motives  to  a  life  of  bliss 
hereafter.  The  "  atonement "  gives  a  virtual  license  to  live  in 
sin ;  it  grants  **  indulgetices  **  darker  than  those  of  the  monk 
Tetas©l,and  pays  for  them  in  the  blood  of  a  murdered  reformer — 
Jesna.    I  defy  any  Christian  to  escape  this  point.    And  here  I 


leave  it,  having  .shown  that  the  Bible  sanctions  such  a  doctrine. 
Fathers  and  mothers,  don't  degrade  your  children  by  teaching 
such  horrid  and  immoral  doctrines,  such  outrageous  lies,  such 
blasphemies  against  God,  and  all  truth  and  beauty. 


CHAPTEB  XI. 

And  now,  let  us  ask,  what  is,  and  has  been,  the  influence  of 
this  doctrine  that  the  "  Bible  is  of  Divine  Origin  and  Infallible 
Authority"?  I  answer,  it  is  and  has  been  deleterious  to  human 
freedom,  progress,  and  unity.  It  dwarfs  the  intellectual,  the 
moral,  and  the  spiritual  nature  of  man.     This  is  its  tendency. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  the  Bible,  when  received  as  "  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice,"  is,  in  its  tenden- 
cies, destructive  of  human,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  freedom. 
And  why  ?     Because  it  bounds  and  circumscribes  the  natural 
liberty  of  the  human  faculties,  chains  the  soul  and  the  religious 
sentiment  in  man  to  the  early,  ignorant,  murderous,  and  foolish 
dogmas  of  both  Jews  and  primitive  Christians.     "  Thau  shalt 
not  be  wise  above  what  is  written"  is  a  sentence  perfectly  em- 
bodying  the  idea  of  Bible  authority,  and  clearly  indicative  of  its 
intended  influence  on  the  race.     We  must  not  step  beyond  the 
circumference  of  the  fathers'  thought  in  religion,  morals,  or  gov- 
ernment.    This  is  the  doctrine  involved.     "  To  the  law  and  to 
the  testimony ;  if  they  speak  not  according  to  these,  it  is  because 
there  is  no  light  in  them,"  is  the  declaration  of  Scripture,  as  ap- 
plied to  itself,  to  its  own  authority.     It  thus  ignores  the  God  in 
man,  in  Nature  — the  only  living  God—md  bows  man  upon 
the  altar  of  age,  of  antiquity ;  shuts  up  a  dead,  traditionary  God 
within  the  covers  of  an  old  book,  and  makes  it  heresy  to  doubi. 
the  silly  cosmogony  and  theology  of  Moses,  Joshua,  John,  and  a 
lying  Peter. 

It  teaches  us  that  God  was  once  living  in  the  ancient  world, 


ma 


109 


once  made  himself  miraculoaslj  conspicuoiiB  in  human  affairs, 
once  spoke  to  men  face  to  face  "  as  a  man  speaketh  to  his  friend;  '* 
that  he  incarnated  himself  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  was  craoified 
on  the  cross  for  human  sins,  and  has  not  showed  himself  or  been 
heard  of  since.  Since  the  death  of  Jesus,  according  to  this 
doctrine,  we  have  had  a  iiving  Devils  and  a  dead  God,  Since 
the  bloody  cross,  men  are  no  more  to  see  God,  to  talk  with  him 
face  to  face;  we  must  speak  and  pray  to  him  by  proxy,  "  must 
whine  and  whimper  in  his  ear  in  the  name  of  Jesus ! "  It  thus 
inverts  the  divine  order,  and  turns  the  race  backward  to  the  dark 
and  more  barbarous  past  foir  light.  In  its  view,  a  million  shining 
worlds  are  only  lamps  for  the  pigmies  of  this  little  earth  to  see  by, 
and  ten  hundred  millions  of  beating  hearts,  and  thinking  heads, 
and  working  hands,  are  of  less  consequence  than  the  mould- 
ering relics,  the  superstitious  dogmas,  and  the  sensual  religion 
of  ancient  semi-»vages.  It  rears  costly  edifices  on  the  crashed 
bodies  of  oppressed  men  and  women,  and  denies  the  right  of 
thought  and  speech  on  religion  to  all  who  will  not  think  its 
thought,  and  speak  its  word,  on  pain  of  eternal  death.  God's 
word  in  a  book  (assumed)  is  truer  than  God*s  works  in  nature  ; 
and  the  letter  of  defunct  polygamists,  and  lustful  soothsayers,  is 
regarded  as  of  more  importance  than  the  natural  and  healthful 
instincts,  the  ihin^  reason  and  religious  sentiment  of  a  throbbing 
spirit.  One  of  the  most  destructive  effects  of  this  idea  about  the 
Bible  m practical  aikeism,  and  indeed  theoretical  atheism  also; 
for  it  affirms  a  Divinity  in  a  traditionary  record  as  the  only 
Divinity  which  men  can  get  at  for  any  great  purpose  of  life.  It 
teaches  us  to  distrast  the  voice  of  our  Creator  and  constant 
Inspirer^  as  manifest  in  la,  by  calling  U8  depraved  in  soul, 
God-forsaken,  and  calls  instinct  reason,  and  intuition  the  voice 
of  a  Devil.  A  iiving  Devil  and  a  dead  God ;  the  first  in 
men,  living,  acting  men,  —  the  second  only  in  a  record,  shut 
up  between  the  lids  of  an  old  musty  book  ! !  And  how  does  the 
race  get  along  with  such  an  anomalous  trinity  —  a  living  Devil 
the  first  person,  a  dead  God  the  second  person,  and  an  old 
self-contradictory  record  the  third  person?    Yes  —  how  does 


^  race  get  along  with  such  a  defunct  trinity  — only  one  living 
person  in  it,  and  that  person  —  a  devil  ?    Quite  as  well  as  can  be 
expected.    It  has  wrapped  the  gloom  of  an  Egyptian  mental 
night,  as  a  mantle,  about  the  world  for  a  thousand  years  —  called 
the  dark  ages  — a  thousand  years  in  which  the  Bible  and  the 
doctrine  of  its  infallibillity  reigned  supreme.     In  obedience  to 
"  Bi^le  "  examples.  Christians  bathed  the  plains  of  Turkey  in  the 
blood  of  her  slaughtered  sons— millions  of  men,  women  and 
chUdren ;  and  those  plains  are  to  day  whitened  with  their  bleach- 
ing bones.     Nearly  every  great  war  of  Christendom  has  been 
waged  in  defence  of,  or  in  attempts  to  fasten  the  Bible  and  its 
doctrines  upon  the  soul  of  humanity.     Gibbon,  Hume,  Macaulay, 
and  a  host  of  historians,  all  testify  to  facts  which  sustain  this 
position.     In  the  language  of  an   eminent  divine  of  our  own 
time,  "  The  squares  of  Paris,  of  Antioch,  of   Byzantium,  of 
Jerusalem,  of  Da-mascus,  of  Rome,  the  plains  of  the  Low  Coun- 
tries," and  the  racks  and  dungeons,  gibbets  and  stakes,  and  the 
fires  of  Rome  and  of  Smithfield,  all  testify  to  the  effect  of  this 
doctrine's  reign  in  the  world  among  men. 

In  Christian  America  the  Bible  is  the  text-book  of  "  border 
ruffiam  "  and  of  slavery  propagandists.     Its  authority  sanctions 
"the   sum  of  all  viWmiGs''^ slavery.      Is    it  not,  therefore 
destructive  theoretically  and  practically,  in  government  and  in 
the  soul  of  man  of  true  mental,  moral,  physical,  and  spiritual 
freedom?     Can  a  book  which  ties  up  both  soul  and  body  to 
the  dictum  of  a  Mosaic  slave-code  be  anything  but  destructive 
of  human  liberty?    Slavery  of  the  body  is  bad  enough;  but 
slavery  of  the  soul  is  devilish ;  and  I  have  shown  that  the  Bible 
sanctions  both.    Any  doctrine,  which  thus  enslaves  man,  soul  and 
body,  must  necessarily  be  destructive  in  its  tendencies  to  human 
progress;  for  progress  depends  upon  the  free  and  natural  action 
of  human  faculties.     But  how  can  these  faculties  act  successfully 
while  in  chains  to  false  authority  ?     I  do  not  say  there  are  no 
truths  in  the  Bible.     There  are  many  great  truths  there;  but,  if 
it  is  infallible,  I  am  not  free  to  receive  those  truths,  and  reject 
its  errors.    But,  rejecting  its  infallibility,  I  am  at  liberty  to  re- 

10 


110 


ceive  what  commends  itself  to  mj  reason  and  intuition  as  true, 
and  to  reject  what  is  absurd,  unreasonable,  and  untrue.  No  be- 
liever in  its  infallibility  can  have  or  exercise  such  a  liberty. 
He  is  a  slave  to  its  every  word.  He  has  only  "  to  believe  or  be 
damned.**  No  choice  is  left  him  but  total  subjection  to  its  every 
word  as  authoritative.  No  matter  how  absurd,  how  unreasona- 
ble, how  self-contradictory  it  may  be,  so  long  as  a  man  believes  it 
to  be  dod's  infallible  word,  he  must  not  doubt,  on  pain  of  damna- 

illlll* 

And,  now,  is  such  a  mental  state  natural,  just,  or  productive 
of  good,  of  intelligence,  of  wisdom  and  virtue  ?  It  is  destruc- 
tive of  all.  It  is  a  subversion  of  the  ftindamental  principles  of 
intellectual  and  moral,  of  physical  and  of  spiritual  life  and 
growth.  Tie  up  the  arm  —  it  shrinks  and  withers.  So  of  every 
human  mental  and  spiritual  faculty.  Action,  ftee,  healthy  ac- 
tion of  all  our  faculties,  is  the  only  means  of  personal,  of  social, 
or  of  national  and  universal  growth  —  of  human  progress. 

In  scientific,  artistic  and  philosophical  life,  doubts  are  often, 
if  not  always,  the  keys  to  new  discoveries,  inventions  and  philo- 
sophical truths.  If  Gall  had  not  doubted  the  doctrines  of  the  old 
metaphysics,  he  never  would  have  discovered  the  noble  science 
of  mind,  as  it  is  in  living  man.  Implicit  faith  in  the  scientific 
or  philosophical  revelations  of  the  past  would  have  totally  dis- 
armed the  souls  of  the  great  discoverers  and  benefactors  of  the 
race  of  all  power  to  advance  beyond  the  narrow  range  of  the 
thoughts  of  the  fathers,  and  so  have  robbed  the  race  of  its 
brightest  crown  —  progre&s,  advancement.  Implicit  faith  in  the 
past  would  have  effectually  shut  the  lipa  of  Jesus  from  the 
words  **  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said  of  old  time,  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  friends  and  hate  thy  enemies;  but  J  say  unto  you, 
ioee  your  enemies"  The  liberty  exercised  by  Jesus,  of  contra- 
dicting the  doctrines  of  the  past,  if  untrue,  is  our  highest  mental 
right,  our  only  capacity  of  advancement.  But  for  this  liberty, 
and  its  use,  the  world  would  stagnate,  and  the  race  tramp  round 
and  round  in  the  same  eternal  circle,  like  an  old  mill-horse, 
grinding  out  the  same  eternal  Me — no  progress,  no  advancement. 


111 

no  growth.  This  is  as  true  in  religion  as  in  science  of  any  other 
kmd.  It  is  as  true  in  sociology  as  in  philosophy.  It  is  univer- 
sally and  eternally  true.  But  the  popular  idea  of  the  Bible  is 
opposed  to  this  truth,  and  is  therefore  untrue.  Men  must  doubt 
the  doctrines  of  Moses  in  order  to  believe  those  of  Jesus ;  and 
doubt  some  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  order  to  believe  the  great^t 
truths  of  this  nineteenth  century. 

As  action  is  the  only  means  of  progress,  so  liberty  is  the  only 
just  condition  of  action.     A  mind  is  not  in  a  state  of  natural  lib- 
erty, or  of  true  action,  when  the  fear  of  damnation  holds  it  in 
subjection  to  the  foolish  dictum  of  Moses  and  Paul.     Such  a 
mind  is  in  the  most  abject  state  of  slavery— the  slavery  of  soul 
—of  intellectual  and  religious  slavery.     And  such  is  the  state 
of  all  Christians  who  are  full  in  the  faith  that  the  Bible  is  the 
only  and  infallible  rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice.     I  regard 
the  churches  of  all  Christendom  as  only  so  many  religious  forges, 
and  priests  as  the  manufacturers,  where  and  by  whom  soul- 
chains,  ay,  and  body-chains  too,  are  forged  and  fastened  upon 
the  spirits  and   limbs  of  men,  women,  and  children,  and  all 
through  this  popular  notion  about  the  Bible.     It  is  high  time 
this  iron  yoke  was  broken  from  off  the  neck  of  humanity.     As  I 
have  shown,  it  is  the  very  core  of  the  religious  and  political  des- 
potisms of  all  Christendom.     It  is  the  authority  and  apology  for 
African  slavery,  —  "  oligarchs"  in  America's  Barbary  States,— 
and  cannot  therefore  be  from  God,  the  Father  of  both  blacks  and 
whites. 

Let  me  now  sum  up  the  argument  against  the  Bible.  First, 
it  is  proved,  by  the  authority  of  the  first  Christian  scholars  and 
divines,  that  there  is  not  a  jot  or  tittle  of  external  historical 
evidence  to  prove  that  a  single  book,  chapter  or  word  of  the 
Bible  came  from  God  miraculously ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
from  the  same  source  it  is  proved  that  false  Gospels,  false  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  false  Epistles,  were  forged  by  orthodox  Chris- 
tians ;  and  that,  too,  immediately  after  the  death  of  Jesus ;  and 
that  there  is  no  proof  in  history  that  the  disciples  ever  wrote  a 
word  of  the  New  Testament ;  that  it  is  certain,  if  they  had  left 


no 


any  **oriffifmi  mitojraph,'**  tlie  Fatliers  would  have  quotiid 
them  in  their  disputations  with  heretics  —  but  they  did  not  so 
quote  them :  that  the  most  learned  writers  of  the  church  doii*t 
know  when,  or  in  what  language,  or  where,  much  of  the  Bible 
was  written,  or  by  whom ;  that  they  don't  know  when  or  by 
whom  the  oanons  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were 
settled;  that  they  do  know  that  the  only  persons  who  could 
have  separawd  the  genuine  from  the  spurious  New  Testament 

even  commendaMe^  to  deceim  and  lie  for  the  interests  ofrelifjion 
and  tkdr  church  ;  "  that,  even  admitting  the  Bible  to  have  been  • 
once  pure,  it  is  so  no  more,  being  endlessly  corrupted  by  tran- 
scribers, copyists  and  translators — so  that  all  Bibles  are  cor- 
rupted **  irremcaM.y  ;  "  that  the  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  differ 
and  contradict  each  other  endlessly,  and  so  we  have  no  true 
standard  of  correction ;  and,  therefore,  that  **  the  Bible  *'  is  not 
an  infaiiible  rule  of  rdigiom  faith  and  practice. 

The  following  is  the  sum  of  the  internal  testimony.  From  an 
examination  of  the  Bible's  contents,  it  is  proved.  1st,  that  ii 
gives  b'lasphemom  representatiom  of  God  ;  speaks  evil  of  Beily ; 
subjects  Divinity  to  criminal  and  revolting  vices  and  crimes, 
such  as  killing  men,  women  and  children,  all  for  his  own  glory 
— teaching  the  Jews  to  swindle  their  neighbors  —  as  command- 
ing little  children  to  be  stoned  for  their  fathers'  sins  —  as  cutting 
off  whole  nations  for  their  rulers'  sins  —  at  one  time  as  de-stroy- 
ing  seeenty  thomand  persons  by  pestilence,  because  he  himself 
moved  David  to  number  Israel  and  Judah  —  as  loving  some, 
and  hating  others,  before  either  were  born.  It  further  repre- 
sents him  as  capricious  —  as  getting  mad,  and  being  cooled  off 
by  being  coaxed  and  wheedled  out  of  his  passion  by  appeals  to 
Ms  vanity,  &c.,  &e.;  and  that,  therefore,  the  Bible  is  not  from 
God.  2d.  It  gives  contradictory  representations  of  God ;  one 
eel  of  passages  teaching  one  thing,  and  another  teaching  exactly 
thi  opposite,  and  is  not,  therefore,  of  "  Divine  ori|»in,  authority, 
or  iniuence."  3d.  It  contradicts  the  facts  and  mathematical 
demonstrations  of  astronomy  and  geology, — the  living  word 


113 


writ  in  starry  worlds,  and  carved  on  earth's  granite  pages,  and  is 
not,  therefore,  of  ''Divim  origin^'  &c.  5th.  It  is  self-contradic- 
tory, in  numerous  instances  which  no  ingenuity  can  reconcile,  and, 
consequently,  is  not  of  '*  Divine  origin."  &c.  6th.  It  sanctions 
political  despotism,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  of  "  Divine  origin," 
&c.  7th.  It  sanctions  slavery,  « the  mm  of  all  villanies." 
It  is  not,  therefore,  of  "  Divine  origin,"  &c.  8th.  It  favors  con- 
gugal  despotism,  and  cannot  be  of  "  Divine  origin,"  &c.  9th.  It 
sanctions  polygamy  and  concubinage,  or  the  practice  of  having 
many  wives  and  mistresses  in  addition.  10th.  It  teaches  false 
and  dangerous  doctrines  on  morals,  theology,  religion,  and 
various  other  subjects;  it  is  not,  therefore,  of  Divine  or  mirac- 
ulous origin,  of  infallible  authority,  or  of  a  holy  or  just  influ- 
ence when  so  regarded. 

Will  any  one  believe  that  God  has  a  right,  because  he  is 
Omnipotent,  to  speak  evil  of  himself ;  or  to  cause  men  to  do  so  ? 
Will  God  contradict  himself?     Can  his  word  in  worlds  contra- 
dict his  word  in  a  book  ?    Will   God,  or  can  he,  violate  or 
abolish  his  own  laws  until  he  can  annihilate  himself?     Will,  or 
do,  his  works  contradict  themselves  and  each  other  ?    Does  our 
Father,  the  Father  of  all  races,  love  to  exalt  oppressors  on  the 
crushed  and  bleeding  bodies  of  his  oppressed  children?    Does 
God,  the  all-merciful,  butcher  his  subjects  "all   for  his  own 
glory?"     Can  Divine  Justice  sanction  swindling  and  murder? 
Does  it  make  men  to  slaughter  fathers,  mothers,  and  little  male 
children,  as  the  Bible  says  God  did,  in  order  to  prostitute  the 
virgin  daughters  of  one  nation,  the  Midianites,  to  the  devilish 
lusta  of  another,  the  Jews?     Will  Divine  Holiness  and  Wisdom 
hold  up,  as  examples,  such  men  as  a  lying  and  lecherous  David, 
Abraham,  and  Jacob,  or  as  old  Solomon,  with  his  thousand  de- 
graded prostitutes?    Are  the  eyes  of  God   pleased  with   the 
present  subjugation  of  women,  as  a  result  of  Bible  teachings? 
Will  Infinite  Love  make  man  a  "master"  and  "lord"  over  his 
wife,  as  a  subject  and  slave  ?    Are  the  eyes  and  ears  of  God  well 
pleased  with  the  chattelization  of  his  noblest  work,  the  crack  of 
the  slave-driver's  lash,  amid  the  blood  and  groans  of  their  slaves  ? 

10* 


f  0  make  tli©  Bible  •*  Divine,"  all  these  questions  must  be  d^ 
Moiistrafcivelj  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  every  defence  of 
tbe  Bible,  as  a  miraculous  revelation  from  God,  must  necessarily 
aesume  the  defence  of  crime,  of  vice,  and  of  wrong  of  every 
grade,  as  consistent  with  the  divine  nature  and  attributes.  To 
the  Bible  student  who  has  followed  me  closely,  this  is  certain. 
There  is  no  escape  from  it.  Header,  is  not  this  point  fairly 
established,  and  beyond  successful  contradiction,  in  the  foregoing 
pages?  In  all  truth  and  honesty,  I  believe  it  is.  I  know  it  is, 
or  I  know  nothing. 

Before  these  facts,  these  internal  facts  of  the  Bible,  all  the 
talk  about  miracles  and  prophecy  amounts  to  naught.  How 
many  miracles,  for  instance,  would  it  take  to  prove  both  sides  of 
II  proposition  true*?  How  many  prophecies  would  be  necessary 
to  prove  that  God  is  all-powerful,  and  at  the  same  time  that 
**  chariots  of  iron  "  are  too  strong  for  him  ?  How  many  miracles 
would  it  take  to  prove  that  God  is  both  visible  and  invisible  at 
the  game  time  ?  How  many  miracles  will  it  take  to  prove  that 
God  is  all-knowing,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  that  he  don't  know 
whether  Abraham  feared  him  or  not,  until  he  tries  him  —  makes 
iin  actual  experiment  to  find  out?  A  miracle  is,  literally,  a 
wonder,  —  theologically, a  supernatural  event,  —  a  "violation  of 
the  established  constitution  and  course  of  things."  Now,  how 
many  « miracles'*  will  It  take  to  prove  that  lying,  swindling, 
murder,  and  prostitution,  are  in  concord  with  the  Divine  Will,  as 
I  have  shown  the  Bible  teaches  ? 

Turn  the  universe  inside  out,  and  it  could  not  prove  light  dark- 
ness, sin  holiness,  murder  a  virtue,  and  prostitution  just.  A  lie 
is  eternally  a  lie,  and  crime  nothing  but  crime.  Are  virtue  and 
vice  only  temporary  distinctions  dependent  on  the  mere  caprice 
of  an  arbitrary  being  called  "God,"  "Jehovah,"  "Jove,"  or 
•*  Lord  "  ?  Or  are  they  eternal  antagonists,  eternal  distinctions, 
as  are  light  and  darkness,  happiness  and  woe,  discord  and  har- 
mony, and  founded  in  the  nature  of  the  divine  mind,  and  inher- 
ing in  the  constitution  of  things,  and  whose  destruction  muit 
invoke  the  annihilation  of  Eternal  Power,  Justice,  Love,  Wii- 


115 


dom,  and  Beauty  ?    If  the  latter,  then  the  Bible  is  blasphe- 
mously impious,  and  no  amount  of  wonders  can  make  it  else. 
And,  beside,  any  miracles  which  are  educed  to  prove  the  divinity 
of  the  Bible,  should,  to  be  legitimate,  and  of  any  force,  be  ex- 
pressly wrought  for  this  very  purpose;  and  the  power,  so  work- 
ing the  miracles,  should  so  declare  its  object  at  the  time.    But 
there  are  no  such  miracles  in  the  Bible.     Of  what  force  are  the 
so-called  miracles  of  Jesus  in  proving  the  lies  of  Abraham  and 
David  to  be  truths  ?    Did  the  story  of  his  turning  water  into 
wine,  turn  the  murdering  of  the  old  men,  women,  and  male  chil- 
dren, of  the  Midianites,  and  the  prostitution  of  their  virgins,  by 
the  Jews,  at  God's  command,  into  a  glorious  virtue,  a  holy, 
righteous  deed?     If  it  did,  then  virtue  is  only  spoken  wind  or 
written  parchment,  and  lies  are  only  the  contradiction  of  the  two. 
If  so,  committing  crime,  and  charging  it  to  God,  is  a  divine 
work,  and  the  stories  of  Sinbad  the  Sailor  are  divine,  and  the 
governmental  murders  of  Nicholas   of  Russia   are  as  holy  as 
those  of  Moses.     The  prophecies  uttered  by  Isaiah,  or  Jeremiah, 
or  Daniel,  or  Jesus,  if  true,  do  not,  and  cannot,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  prove  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis  to  be  consistent  with  the 
known  facts  and  demonstrations  of  science.      They  were  not 
given  for  that  purpose.    They  have  no  reference  to  the  divinity 
of  the  Bible ;  and,  if  true,  they  only  prove  that  the  prophet  saw 
truly.     All  the  prophecies  of  all  religiondom  can't  prove  the 
truth,  the  usefulness,  or  the  soundness  of  Jesus'  doctrine  on  the 
subject  of  providential  or  forelooking  labor.     Truth  and  Justice 
are  our  standards  of  divinity,  not  our  divinity  —  our  conceptions 
of  God  —  the  standard  of  truth  and  justice.     We  ought  to  judge 
the  divinity  of  all  nations,  all  books,  and  creeds,  by  truth  and 
justice;  not  truth  and  justice  by  book  and  traditionary  divinities. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0032144237 


(] 


five  cents  a  day  will  be  incurred. 


*m* 


1 


j'*''..-  'I'M 

n 


Finney 


\r^<^7 


2.\  \.0\ 


"F'^/S)? 


d 


d 


iFEB  1 8  1931 


